In message <48da8f07-cc0a-4cfa-9153-056585483...@virtualized.org> David Conrad writes: [.. snip, sorry ..] > > Is this scenario accurate?
I haven't a clue. :-) I'm out of the layer 8 loop. My understanding is that an entity with a very large address space would be entitled to run their own registry. If it were run the way the IRR was intended to be run, then anyone with a significant amount of address space could appeal to ARIN or ICANN or Jon Postel, or just the other registries to form yet another registry. Since providers have to agree to used it (no small hurdle) if address space isn't at least as cheap as domain names, then it probably won't get any support. Natious would not count for anything but their own infrastructure unless they were providing Internet services and suballocating. Address space should also have consistent rules and consistent pricing from the little guy looking for a /27 for the rack mounts in their basement to the big providers and nations. The most important rule is "no hoarding" - no allocation for addresses that might be used later but that can't be justified today. But this is not a techincal problem and the WG chair would be justified in declaring this discussion out of scope. (Hi Goeff, Sandy - had enough yet?) What ever happended to IPv6? Is routable address space available to meer mortals yet? > > Are you expecting a new round of conspiracy theories? > > Expecting: most definitely. But more to the point, experiencing > already: yes. Sorry to hear that. Not much has changed in that regard. As you know there were almost never conspiracy theories or even so much as ill words spoken regarding the NSFNET program. :-) > Regards, > -drc Best regards, Curtis _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
