[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs

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