Yes, I appologise for accidentally resurrecting the fixed charge, by typing "is suggested" when my brain was thinking "was suggested."
We did indeed all agree to delegate *that* choice to IANA. Brian Bob Hinden wrote: > > Charlie, > > >I think that the fixed charge is a mistake, and > >should be avoided. > > I trust that everyone commenting on this has actually read the current > draft. A fixed charge was removed several drafts ago. > > The current draft does not impose a fixed charge for a prefix, but instead > sets a requirement that the allocation authority implement a mechanism that > prevents hoarding. Specifically from section 3.2.1 Centrally Assigned > Global IDs: > > - Provide mechanisms that prevent hoarding of these allocations. > > .... > > The allocation service should include sufficient provisions to avoid > hoarding of numbers. This can be accomplished by various ways, for > example, requiring an exchange of documents, a verbal contact, or a > proof that the request is on behalf of a human rather than a machine. > The service may charge a small fee in order to cover its costs, but > the fee should be low enough to not create a barrier to anyone > needing one. The precise mechanisms should be decided by the > registration authority. > > Bob > > >To avoid hoarding, of course it would be good to > >avoid bugs. In case, that is considered impossible > >(sigh!) we can also demand that each address and/or > >prefix be accompanied by a certificate generated > >by IANA with a one-way hash to validate it. > >The hash is to be unforgeable. The certificate > >is to contain the time of issuance. > > > >Nobody is going to be able to present a billion > >certificates satisfying the time constraint that > >each one be separated by one or more seconds. > >This can be made to be machine verifiable also. > > > >Maybe there is another way, but in any case I > >strongly think the fixed charge should be avoided. > > > >And, finally, I assert that the bugs can be > >avoided anyway. It doesn't have to be more > >than a few hundred lines of code. > > > >Regards, > >Charlie P. > > > > > >Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > > > > Jarno, this is exactly why the fixed charge is suggested - to make > > > the cost of bulk hoarding significant. > > > > > > And no, I don't want to imagine such a bug - I have more confidence than > > > that in IANA and the organisations IANA delegates to. > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > Thomas Narten wrote: > > > > > why we can't make such assignments permanent. (Note: I'd agree with > > > > > you that the assignments shouldn't be permanent if there was a case to > > > > > be made that it may become necessary to reclaim them at some future > > > > > time. Is there?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > What if someone manages to hoard the address space and then starts to > > sell them? Assume a bug in the system managing the allocations and > > someone exploiting it and getting 1/2 of the whole address space that > > they now "own" for good. > > > > > > > > Maybe there should be a notion of reclaiming prefixes that should not > > have been allocated in the first place? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Jarno -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
