[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.

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.

> 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.

> Vladislav Potapov
> Ru.iiat

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....