Re: IPv6 RIR policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>> no demonstration has been made that what IETF provided is "not
>> operationally feasible".
> Given the stunningly successful deployment of IPv6 ten years after it
> has been standardized, I can see how you would say this.
and somehow the RIRs are going to fix this by changing the default
address allocation size?  as far as I knew this was the least of IPv6's
problems.
> IPv6 is fascinating in how it has inherited many of the problems of
> IPv4 but in a way that isn't backwards compatible with IPv4.  As such,
> it shouldn't be too surprising that the same operational
> considerations that apply to IPv4 also apply to IPv6.
it wouldn't be surprising if it were true.  but it's not true in general.
>> also, I suggest that the RIRs are only considering operations from a
>> narrow point-of-view.
> The narrow point of view that says the network should actually work,
> yes.  The RIRs are comprised of folks who provide or use Internet
> services.  As such, they do sort of want the Internet to function,
> even if that functioning is aided by violations of IETF holy writs.
perhaps, but they might have a different idea of "functionality" than
their customers.  if we're trying to balance the interests of ISPs
against those of users, somehow a body that consists of mostly ISPs
doesn't seem like the place to do it.

Keith


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]