On May 10, 2013 11:51 AM, "SM" <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> At 16:06 16-04-2013, The IESG wrote:
>>
>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>> the following document:
>> - 'The Internet Numbers Registry System'
>> <draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt> as Informational RFC
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2013-05-14. Exceptionally, comments may be
>
>
> This draft is well-written and it is a significant improvement compared to the previous version.
>
> In Section 2:
>
> "As such, allocations must be made in accordance with the operational
> needs of those running the networks that make use of these number
> resources and by taking into consideration pool limitations at the
> time of allocation."
>
> The global IPv4 address pool is currently depleted. Two RIR regions are in IPv4 exhaustion phase. There is a proposal in the RIPE region to remove "need" [1]. I gather that this new version of the Internet Numbers Registry System looks towards a future where hosts are IPv6 accessible. Given that the free IPv6 address pool is very large and that IP addresses are not free, what is the rationale for keeping allocations in accordance with operational needs?
>
I disagree with need based assignment and believe this draft should remove all such language
The need based policy is not equitable and is nothing but a drag in the post ipv4 exhaust world.
I have made a case for moving away from need basis here, http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2013-April/026592.html
The ietf should really take the time to review what the rirs have done and if their mandate needs to be updated.
Ipv4 belongs to the market and ipv6 does not have scarcity issues.
CB
> "Registration Accuracy: A core requirement of the Internet
> Numbers Registry System is to maintain a registry of
> allocations to ensure uniqueness and to provide accurate
> registration information of those allocations in order to
> meet a variety of operational requirements."
>
> There isn't any mention of privacy [2] considerations in the draft. Is it up to the IETF to set up a one-stop shop for personal data requests?
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
> 1. https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03
> 2. http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2012-April/024596.html