> > Essentially, the IETF is placing control over the route > announcement > > question in the hands of those who are actually impacted by the > > question. If there is any dispute over the specifics of how this is > > handled, the RIRs are the forum in which it should be worked out. > > RIRs have no power to do that today. Routability of prefixes > is solely in the hands of ISPs that accept (or not) those > routes.
And ISPs happen to be members of the RIRs and therefore they have a voice in the policies of the RIRs. Therefore, RIRs do have the power to prevent ULA-C route announcements and the RIRs are the forum for interested parties, such as ISPs and address holders, to work out the issue. Not the IETF. > And we do _not_ want a world where some group of > ivory tower academics and vendors tell operators what they > _must_ do on their own networks. Precisely why the IETF delegates this type of thing through IANA to the RIRs. > The Internet is successful > due to cooperation inspired by enlightened self-interest, not > central control. Which is why there are 5 separate regional RIRs which are ultimately controlled by the self-interested parties cooperating with each other in each region. If the IETF states its intent for ULA-C addresses, that does not mean there is any kind of central control. --Michael Dillon -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
