[address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet [mailto:Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at]
> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:09 AM
> To: Potapov Vladislav
> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New
> Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address
> Allocation Policy)
> 
> Vladislav,
> 
> I have to strongly disagree with your assertions.
> 
> poty at iiat.ru wrote:
> 
> > Nick, just because there is the word "private".
> > Why should RIPE or some other organization (including mine) provide
> the
> > registration and supporting service (for example - uniqueness) for
> PRIVATE
> > networks?
> 
> First of all, RIPE is the Community, the RIPE NCC is executing the
> policies
> and providing e.g. the Registration Services.
> 
RIPE = RIPE NCC of course in my writings. Just to be more short.



> Every organsiation obtaining services, e.g. an IP-Address Assignment
or
> an Allocation are contributing to offset the expenses; either directly
> or by way of an existing LIR.
What service do YOU mean? Could it be possible for me (just for prestige
of my company) to obtain several class-A IPv4 blocks just paying for the
RIPE NCC (now correctly written?) service? We are discriminating here
not to waste the address space for that? Why we should be so happy to
waste the space in the other way? I speak not about expenses, you know!


> > If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies -
> > it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means
for
> > achieving that!
> 
> The TCP/IP Technology (including the resources to uniquely identify
the
> individual components) are - and indeed should continue to be -
> accessible
> to the full community. Whether using this stuff on the "Internet" or
> for
> some other purpose is not a discriminating factor here.
I fully agree with that! But companies, not involved in the
communication with other parties, called the Internet, should create
their own uniqueness for themselves. Why it should be achieved by help
of irrelevant (read - the Internet) party?

> PS: we have already seen the disadvantage of liberally applying
> RFC1918,
> i.e. non-unique, addressing in organisations that eventually were
> (forced
> to) connecting to other organisations....
Sometimes it IS disadvantage, sometimes - not. It is really depends on
the point of view. I think RFC 1918 prolonged the life of v4 space and
it IS an advantage. And problems... Problems were, is and will be... It
shouldn't be use as an argument.

Vladislav Potapov
Ru.iiat