> 1) The draft introduces the concept and one way to manage this, however, in > section 7.0, IANA considerations, is already indicated "... If deemed > appropriate, the authority may also consist of multiple organizations > performing the allocation authority duties".
the same IANA session also says: "The IANA is instructed to designate an allocation authority, based on instructions from the IAB, for centrally assigned Unique Local IPv6 unicast addresses. This allocation authority shall comply with the requirements described in Section 3.2 of this document, including in particular allocation on a permanent basis and with sufficient provisions to avoid hoarding of numbers." Yes "if deemed appropriate". And if "we" think RIRs can do this do, we need to make sure it is done accordindly to established rules. others on this list have made some good points on this isssue. > 2) Even if only L=1 is defined, the entire block is on IANA hands, as it is > a /7, not /8. and you need to get the desired block(L=0) from IANA to the designated authority(ies). > 3) The definition of L=0 is done by this document. We just need to move it > forward again, which as said before, can be done in parallel with the PDP in > the RIRs. I don't think there is any rule that says "must be done in serial > mode" and if this helps to win time, why not ? I am not confortable with AfriNIC adopting "the policy as proposed" without clarifications the issues mentionned. --alain _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
