[address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses

> RFC 2050 was intended to document the then-current (1996) number
> registry policies. As mentioned in the IESG-inserted prologue, the
> IESG was going to reevaluate the "best current practice" status via
> the Internet Registry Evolution (IRE) working group (which never got
> beyond the BOF stage). By the time 2050 was published, it was already
> overtaken by events and I believe there was a consensus (at least
> within the RIR and maybe network operation communities) that further
> policy definition should be done within the RIR structures, not the
> IETF.
> 
> As such, I've always found folks treating 2050 as holy text somewhat
> amusing. I have suggested in a couple of places that 2050 should be
> moved to Historic, but there doesn't seem much appetite in the IETF to
> take that on.

amusingly, it is held up as sacred text when it suits, and described as
ancient history when it does not suit.  but the admin infrastructure
seems to have majored in hypocrisy, so no shock there.

we were both there in danvers, as were others.  it was a meeting of the
ops and the then-existent rirs to reach some agreements, especially on
allocation size and satanic phyltres (the /19 compromise).  in normal
ops behavior, once the immediate deal was done, we all went back to work
and forgot about it.  the rirs used it to embed self-perpetuating
monopolies.

today's problem is that reaching a new agreement would mean slicing
through massive rhetoric, bs, deeply embedded financial positions in
rental of integers, vigilante culture, ...  that it is essentially
hopeless.

otoh, i must compliment the ripe community for trying to address the
issues of legacy, pi, ... space, and re-form the internet community.
maybe there is hope.

randy