[address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:12:15AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:

> > so have a new way to get it in
> > a few pieces.  given that fp=001 is supposed to last decades, and we
> > don't know decades of internet governance (what once used to be called
> > stewardship) reliability, this seems unwise.
> 
> So am I right in interpreting this as "as we don't know whether the way
> forward is the right way, let's stop moving altogether"?

I interpret it as "we are driving in fog and don't know the road ahead, lets
better wear a safety belt". And I do not see why assigning larger blocks to
the RIRs would speed up the IPv6 deployment. 

I see absolutely no need in assigning gigantic netblocks (like /8s) to the
RIRs. The few RIRs now do not at all mean, that there will be only few in 20
years. Then we might have NIRs (N=National). In that case we already need
around 150 /8s? Or we might have PIRs (P=planetary)? Or we have something
that does not end in IR at all?

We should keep organizational scalability in mind as much as technical
scalability. Both are equally important, so ignoring one of the two seems
like a mistake to me. I would even go so far as to say that in the future
most likely the technical scalability issues regarding Address assignment
will be smaller then they are today (by looking at the technical
improvements regarding possible routing table size over the last 20 years).


Nils
-- 
[Bananenweizen]
Denn es läuft dem einzigen wichtigen Menschenrecht zuwider, das
Deutschland hervorgebracht hat, nämlich dem deutschen 
Reinheitsgebot.                  [Harald Zils in de.alt.arnooo]