[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC

Hi Doug,

Thanks for your reply.

This means basically that the process should be started by ASO or IAB or any of them ? Updating the RFC isn't an option ? My guess is that the updated could be backed up by the IAB.

The main point is HOW to kick-off the process ...

Regards,
Jordi

---- Original Message ----
From: "Doug Barton" <barton at icann.org>
To: "Johan Ihren" <johani at autonomica.se>
Cc: "Kurt Erik Lindqvist" <kurtis at kurtis.pp.se>; "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"
<jordi.palet at consulintel.es>; <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>; <hinden at iprg.nokia.com>
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] New
IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC 

> Johan Ihren wrote:
>> Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis at kurtis.pp.se> writes:
>> 
>> 
>>>> I guess if the RFC is there is because IANA requires it, so moving
>>>> this to historic will not work, instead updating it will do.
>>> 
>>> Help me out here. Why would IANA require it? I don't remember there
>>> being an RFC telling IANA how to allocate other resources? What's so
>>> special about IPv6 addresses?
>> 
>> 
>> The lesson learned here is that IANA allocation policy based on
>> numbers specified in an RFC caused problems once. Then updating the
>> RFC to get around the problem is broken. That's just pushing the
>> problem out of sight with a clear promise of it coming back to bite us
>> sometime in the future.
>> 
>> Moving the RFC to historic is one half of the solution. The other half
>> is IANA standing on their own legs (together with the NRO) on these
>> matters.
> 
> Thank you for including me in this discussion. Rather than attempting to
> correct details of the history described in this thread (and which even
> if I was right it wouldn't matter too much since they happened before I
> took my current position in December of 2003) I would like to suggest a
> way forward.
> 
> The current membership of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has
> expressed an interest in the direction in which IPv6 allocation policy
> proceeds. ICANN thinks that this interest is perfectly reasonable, and
> welcomes it, as well as their valuable insight on the relevant issues.
> 
> My position on this issue has been clearly stated on numerous occasions
> going back to January of this year. It is not IANA's job to create
> policy. We will however be glad to participate in a discussion that is
> designed to lead to a policy, offering our unique perspective.
> 
> An excellent example of how this process probably should work is the
> IPv4 global allocation policy that was developed in cooperation between
> the RIRs and IANA back in July 2003.
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/iana-rir-allocation-policies.html
>  That policy subsequently went through the policy fora in all 4 regions,
> and is currently awaiting finalization through the ASO process.
> 
> A similar process needs to occur in relationship to IPv6 allocation
> policy on a global level. ICANN and the IAB stand ready to enter into
> such discussions, and eagerly await such an invitation from the RIRs.
> 
> Between now and the time that such a policy is created, IANA's position
> is that it is not appropriate for us to attempt to be "creative" in this
> area.
> 
> Doug


**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.