[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Tue Aug 10 22:39:05 CEST 2004
Hi, On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:03:57AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: > >> and i do not buy the assumption that the rirs need no oversight, > >> just as i do not buy that the iana does. and i do not buy that > >> these policy fora mailing lists provide that oversight any more > >> than i buy that the equivalent ones in icann provide the same > >> for the iana. > > So what are your proposals to improve the system, then? > > what's broken? The current mess regarding IPv6 allocations to the RIRs is. People have to wait for 8 weeks for their /20s because RIRs can't issue reasonably-sized address blocks on their own, without having to fallback to ICANN (who are hiding behind a 6-year-old RFC without showing any initiative to get the situation clarified or improved). The /23 allocation granularity is plain ridiculous, which has been voiced *very* clearly by the communities, with just no reaction. > the rirs watch the lirs. iana watches the rirs. > icann watches the iana. And who is watching ICANN? > > I agree with you that ICANN doesn't work. > > you are agreeing with a statement i did not make. i may have > 'issues' with the icann, but in general they have not managed > to break the internet as much as a lot of other players. As who, out of the parties in question would that be, if I may ask? > > As for the RIPE NCC, at least in the last few years, things have > > been reasonably well > > and in the next few years? things go in cycles. that is why we > should be relatively conservative and have oversight and > cooperation. IPv6 policy, as of today, is more than "releatively" conservative. > > IPv6 things have been too conservative > oh, you have run out of space? I haven't, but people tell me that I'm supposed to build hierarchy into my network, give every customer an insanely large address block *and* do all this out of a /32. Which will work for smallish ISPs like us, for the foreseeable future - but the question remains: what is gained by handing out /32s? A chance to reach 2^29 routing table entries (which would be the result if all of FP001 is handed out as /32s)? Being too conservative on address block size which *will* lead to additional routing table entries. Note that I'm not advocating to give each ISP a /12 or even a /16 - but something better balanced (a /24, for example) would be, umm, "better balanced". > > and too slow > i thought you said that ripe was working well? Don't misunderstand me on purpose, please. I wrote: > > but overall "a situation people can live with". Which is pretty - by which I meant to say "everbody will be unhappy about details, but the amount of unhappiness is low enough so people don't stand up and shout" > > much the most that can be expected from such a sort of "sort-of > > grass-roots buerocracy". > > i just don't buy the 'grass roots' stuff for the rirs any more > than i buy it for icann or the government in washington dc. wake > up and smell the coffee; this is not the internet of our youth. I'm not *that* old - when I entered into this, the RIR system was already pretty much existing as it is today. So maybe everything was better in your youth, I don't know. I found a system that is bureocratic, slow, and very hard to move - but it *does* move if people find something important enough (<<< now *this* is something to complain about, people that don't care...), and the bureaucracy *can* be contained. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65398 (60210) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]