> ... It seems like a simple IETF matter to approve a version of > draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central that directs IANA to assign portions of this > netblock to RIRs for them to use in the manner specified in the draft.
if we're all agreed on that as an approach, and we're no longer considering asking IANA to run a registration robot or asking network owners to choose their own prefixes at random, then this is the first i've heard of it. > If the IETF decides not to advance draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central in favor of > allowing RIRs to do something similar on their own, that will likely be what > happens. But if the RIRs were to advance a policy that looks like ULA-C at > this point, they would be accused of doing an end run around the IETF > process. So here we are. i think that's a succinct summary of the status, but i hope that the final document (writ by whomever under whatever banner) takes account of the possibility that a private internet can be arbitrarily large, even perhaps larger than the current DFZ, at which point words like "public" and "private" and "DFZ" would become meaningless, and the distinction held by FC00 likewise meaningless. RFC 1918 had no such dragons to slay, since everybody already knew what an autonomous system was, and that definition isn't subjective nor malleable based on the size and shape of the connected internet. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
