[address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Conrad
drc at virtualized.org
Mon Jun 2 17:32:49 CEST 2008
Michael, On Jun 1, 2008, at 2:59 AM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> <michael.dillon at bt.com > wrote: > I don't think that IANA would ever do this because it would be > an incredibly stupid thing to do. Since I have never heard IANA > being accused of gross incompetence before, Well, IANA staff get accused of this less often these days (:-)). > I have to believe > that when they receive that request from RIR A, they will ask all > the other RIRs about how many addresses they need before allocating > anything. Current policy does not dictate IANA do this. As the v4 free pool is depleted (particularly as the free pool approaches 10 /8s), I suspect (hope?) there will be greater communication amongst the RIRs. > In fact, I expect IANA to do this well before the last > 2 /8 blocks. Then, after consulting all RIRs, I expect IANA to > publish their intentions and ask for comments before allocating > any blocks. This would be a significant change to existing policy and as such, is not something IANA could implement unilaterally. Whether there is sufficient time left for this to be defined as a "global policy" might be an interesting question. > This is just good business practice and I don't think that the RIRs > need to write policies which tell IANA to do this. I suspect you misunderstand the relationship between the RIRs and IANA. Regards, -drc
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]