This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2007-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 August 2007 (IPv6 ULA-Central)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 August 2007 (IPv6 ULA-Central)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 August 2007 (IPv6 ULA-Central)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
michael.dillon at bt.com
michael.dillon at bt.com
Mon Jul 16 14:31:48 CEST 2007
> The Discussion Period for the proposal described in 2007-05 > has been extended until 13 August 2007. > > This policy is intended to allow the assignment of IPv6 > blocks within the so-called 'Centrally Assigned Unique Local > IPv6 Unicast Addresses' to organisations or individuals requiring it. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html This proposal should be rejected, not discussed. In fact, there are two different proposals being discussed in the IETF for some form of centrally-registered ULA addressing. Both proposals are in draft form and there is no way to predict which one will eventually be accepted or what kinds of changes will be made to the drafts before they become RFCs. This is important, because some of the changes have to do with how RIRs receive blocks of ULA addresses to register, and if that is not yet decided by the IETF, then there is no way for RIPE to register such addresses because RIPE won't have any such addresses to register. In addition, RIPE is part of a political system in which different responsibilities are placed on RIPE, IANA, ICANN, NRO and the IETF. This proposal goes beyond RIPE's responsibilities and attempts to usurp the responsibilities of IANA and the IETF. This is a BAD BAD thing to do, because if RIPE no longer adheres to the social contract, then there is no reason for the other organizations to continue working with RIPE. The whole system depends on cooperation, and this proposal does not demonstrate cooperation. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 August 2007 (IPv6 ULA-Central)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 August 2007 (IPv6 ULA-Central)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]