> > The RIRs are definitely biased towards ISPs, because IP addressing > policy is a core business concern to ISPs but "overhead" to other > companies. The IETF has more vendors but still few end users. > > However, there is adequate proof the RIRs can respond to end users' > concerns when anyone cares enough to show up: PIv6 wouldn't have > happened without end-user operators coming out of the woodwork to > support it, overwhelming ISP and IETF resistance. The periodic > flamefests about how to treat legacy space are also demonstrations of > end-user input, though it seems to amount to no more than "leave us > alone" vs "kill them all" in most cases. I'm glad to hear that RIRs can respond to users' concerns, but that doesn't change the fact that they're second-guessing an IETF decision and that other things in the IPv6 architecture are dependent on that design decision. > When you've got people in the RIRs talking about "routing around the > failure" in reference to the IETF, that's a pretty clear indication. Of what? RIR arrogance? No surprise there, every deliberative body I've been involved with thinks it is superior to others. >>> IPv6 (as I first understood it) did have a business model assumed - >>> that one ISP would be all that an enterprise customer would need, >> >> I don't know anybody who assumed that. I think it was instead >> assumed that multihomed sites could make do with multiple >> (prefixes,addresses) per (net,host) and that applications could >> somehow tolerate having multiple source and destination >> addresses, be able to pick a reasonable pair from among those >> available, and fail over to another source or destination address >> when one end or another renumbered or the connection >> failed. (All of which I find rather dubious, but it's not the same >> thing as assuming that there would be one ISP for an enterprise.) > > The operational community heard that message, deemed it not a viable > solution, and responded by passing PIv6. Heck, people think NAT (and > we all know the IETF's head-in-the-sand attitude on that part of > reality) with ULAs is more viable than multiple parallel PA assignments. Which head in the sand is that? The one that thinks that NATs are benign, or the one that thinks that they cause lots of problems? Both types exist in IETF. IETF is like Zaphod Beeblebrox with his heads constantly arguing with one another from under the sand. That's why IETF took too long to become aware of the inherent problems associated with NATs and too long to speak out about those problems, and has said too little about them. It's also why it never has developed a viable transition path away from NAT and toward native IPv6. >> well, I'm disappointed in the amount of disrespect displayed by RIRs. > > Perhaps that's true. Or perhaps the RIRs are trying to get the > message across that how they assign addresses is up to their > communities, not the IETF. Frankly, short of the IETF telling IANA to > pull the RIRs' allocations, I don't see what practical authority the > IETF has over address policy. I also fail to see why the IETF thinks > it _should_ have any authority over that or any other operational > matters. In my view, the IETF develops tools and it's up to operators > to determine if/how to use them. I think you are confusing policy with protocol design or architecture. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf