Thanks to Jim Fleming for pointing me to this material.
In the recent announcement the use of IANA as the source for IPv6
rather than ICANN is a deception. See first the draft below that
says ICANN is the authority. Then see Brian Carpenter's political
problem with the use of ICANN. Given the RIRs willingness to go
along with this subterfuge i wonder where they do stand on the ASO
issues after all?
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 5 14:10:43 1999
Received: by ops.arin.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id OAA29107
for arin-members-outgoing; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 14:10:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from kimh@localhost)
by ops.arin.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) id OAA29098
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 14:10:00 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IPv6 draft allocation policy
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 14:10:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Kim Hubbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 PGP2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Below is the draft IPv6 allocation policies the RIRs have developed.
I'd like any comments in by COB 2/19/99.
Thanks,
Kim
IPv6 ASSIGNMENT AND ALLOCATION POLICY DOCUMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
1. Scope
2. IPv6 Address Space and the Internet Registry System
2.1 The Internet Registry System Hierarchy
2.2 Goals of the Internet Registry System
3. IPv6 Technical Framework
3.1 IPv6 Addressing Hierarchy
3.2 Initial IPv6 Addressing Hierarchy
4. Addressing Policies
4.1 Allocations
4.2 Assignments
4.3 Reclamation Methods/Conditions
5. Organizations Operating in More than One Region
6. DNS and Reverse Address Mapping
7. Glossary
8. List of References
ABSTRACT
This document describes the registry system for the distribution of
globally unique IPv6 address space, which follows a hierarchical
distribution as it does with IPv4. The distribution of IPv6 address
space is managed by the ICANN (formerly IANA) and further delegated by
the Regional Internet Registries (IRs) as described in RFC 1881. The
Regional IRs assign Top-Level Aggregation Identifiers (TLAs) to
organizations, which in turn assign address space to other Internet
Service Providers (ISPs) and end users. This document describes the
policies and procedures associated with IPv6 address space management
that must be followed by the organizations that hold Top-Level
Aggregate IDs. Since ISPs essentially will be serving as NLA
Registries for their customers, creating additional "layers" to the
Registry system, it is crucial that responsibilities, procedures, and
policies are well understood and consistently applied.
1. SCOPE
[big snip]
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re IPv6 ASSIGNMENT AND ALLOCATION POLICY DOCUMENT (3rd draft) (fwd)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:44:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Kim Hubbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 PGP2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Below are the IAB comments on the RIR draft on IPv6 allocation policies.
I'd like to get any comments on the draft by Friday the 19th, if there
are no comments than I'll assume everyone is happy with it.
It seems like the IAB doesn't want many restrictions on getting sub-tlas.
Keep in mind that the IETF WG limited the number of sub-tlas to 8192 at
this time due to their concern about the growth of the routing tables.
I asked someone in the know what the IAB was thinking and their answer
was basically, they figured they'd worry about that later. I had
the strangest sense of deja vu when I heard that :-)
Kim
Forwarded message:
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Feb 15 04:57:10 1999
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:51:44 +0000
> From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organization: IBM Internet Division
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mirjam Kuehne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> Anne Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CC: IAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re IPv6 ASSIGNMENT AND ALLOCATION POLICY DOCUMENT (3rd draft)
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Re IPv6 ASSIGNMENT AND ALLOCATION POLICY DOCUMENT (3rd draft)
>
> The IAB has been looking at this draft and here are our comments
> (which are not confidential in any way).
>
> It's very good to see the registries working actively on this
> important topic. However there are two points of concern about
> the current version, one political and one technical.
>
> The political one is easy to fix. Referring to ICANN is contentious
> in this context, and referring to IANA is not contentious.
> So please replace all reference to ICANN by IANA. It doesn't
> change anything but it will reduce argument.
>
> The technical one is more tricky. Basically the draft errs too
> much on the side of address conservation. While it is important
> to be prudent and to avoid creating an IPv6 toxic waste dump,
> we do have a lot more freedom than with IPv4. The draft doesn't
> take full advantage of this, with the paradoxical effect that
> aggregation is harmed and unnecessary renumbering is forced.
> We can afford to be more generous with subTLA space and less
> restrictive with slow start. The detailed comments below almost
> all relate to this point.
>
>
> > > IPv6 ASSIGNMENT AND ALLOCATION POLICY DOCUMENT (3rd draft)
> ...
> > >
> > > ABSTRACT
> > >
> > > This document describes the registry system for the distribution of
> > > globally unique IPv6 address space, which follows a hierarchical
> > > distribution as it does with IPv4. The distribution of IPv6 address
> > > space is managed by the IANA (formerly IANA) and further delegated by
>
> ...space is managed by the IANA and...
>
> (it is managed by IANA and only by IANA.)
>
> ...
> > > This document does not describe private IPv6 address space, or anycast
>
> There is no such thing as private IPv6 address space. There
> are site-local and link-local IPv6 addresses defined architecturally.
>
> ...
> > > 2.1.1 IANA
> > >
> > > The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (IANA) has
>
> Remove all mention of ICANN which is a red rag to many bulls.
> The Authority lies with IANA.
>
> > > authority over all number spaces used in the Internet, including IPv6
> > > address space. IANA allocates parts of the IPv6 address space to
> > > Regional Internet Registries (IRs) according to their established
> > > needs.
> > ...
> > > 2.2 Goals of the Internet Registry System
> > >
> > > The remainder of this document is primarily concerned with the
> > > management of public IPv6 address space. Every assignment of IPv6
> > > addresses should be made with the following goals in mind for it is in
> > > the interest of the Internet community as a whole that these goals be
> > > pursued. It is worth noting that "conservation" and "aggregation" are
> > > often conflicting goals, and therefore each assignment must be
> > > evaluated carefully.
****************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet Index to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) The only Good ICANN is a Dead ICANN
[EMAIL PROTECTED] What's Behind ICANN and How it Will
Impact the Future of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml
****************************************************************
