On 2007-06-08 17:15, Bill Manning wrote:
presuming this course of action is taken, it raises a much larger
issue consisting of the IETF creating "property rights" in the
address space arena.
I decline to take the issue of property rights seriously in a
pseudo-random space of 2**40 natural numbers. I *would* recommend
that the robot be hosted by a trusted organization.
To date, (AFAIK) most legal arguments have
taken the line that IP addresses are NOT property, come from a
common resource that the RIR's administer for the good of the
community. ULA-C carves out a bit of IP space and in the absence
of RIR oversight, creates "property"... creating an ambigious
set of legal issues which will be fought for years.
IMHO it's just not going to happen, in the absence of scarcity.
I -REALLY- am uncomfortable w/ the IETF, in a mothballed WG,
As others have pointed out, the fact that this WG isn't currently
meeting f2f is irrelevant. Of course, the debate should include
the entire community, which is why this list is open.
creating this nightmare for the operational community.
Since ULAs aren't routable, I don't see it. If we were talking
about routable PI, it would be a different matter.
Brian
--bill
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 09:14:04AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I trust that the new version will include the proposal
for a fully robotic solution for creating and escrowing
guaranteed-unique ULAs. That's the only missing property in
existing ULAs, and we should certainly consider a purely
robotic solution with no need for registry action or registry
policy of any kind.
Brian
On 2007-06-07 21:26, Brian Haberman wrote:
All,
There has been recent activity in the Registry Community looking at
policies utilizing the Centrally Assigned ULA specification that has
expired. Several people with ties to both the IETF and the RIRs have
been working with the authors to revise the specification in order to
meet the needs of the policy proposals in the RIRs.
Given that the previous work on Centrally Assigned ULAs was adopted
as an IPv6 WG document, the chairs feel that this upcoming revision
should be considered a continuation of that work.
The chairs highly encourage people interested in this work to
review and comment on the upcoming revision when it is published.
As a note, Bob will be the responsible editor for this document and
Brian will be the shepherding WG chair.
Regards,
Brian and Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
