[ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 12:12:32PM +0100, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
> Gert Doering wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 07:14:33PM +0100, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
> >>Also, such a policy is most likely in direct conflict with one of the 
> >>basic paradigms of a RIR - which is equal treatment of its members in 
> >>equal circumstances.
> >
> >Circumstances before and after reaching a given number of routes are
> >not "equal".
> 
> where _eaxctly!_ sits the difference between LIR #5000 and LIR #5001 - 
> to pick up your example? 

It's like growing up, and being 18 years old, over night.  Nothing but 
a small number change, but lots of effect.

> And why is '5,000' _not!_ totally arbitrary?

I didn't say that it's not completely arbitrary.  It's a limit that
is loosely in the same range as the current number of LIRs per RIR, and 
well below the limits that will cause problems for currently deployed 
router architectures.

I don't seriously see us reaching this number anyway in the near future
- but I've put it there in case that I'm wrong, and those people that
are afraid of a massive land rush are right.

> Although I am mostly agnostic wrt. the general discussion here so far, I 
> am absolutely in line with Andre Oppermann's comment that we better have 
> profound and sound answers to those questions ready before such a policy 
> would be put in place - because they would be asked the second after 
> anyways, most likely by these well-known, interested third parties...

I'm open for any proposal that will fulfill all the necessary criteria
(in no specific order, and I'm sure I forgot one or two):

 - fair
 - not-ITU-problematic
 - not-monopoly-problematic
 - not using up BGP routing table slots
 - giving anybody maximum independence from anything else in the Internet
 - not wasting address space
 - giving anybody maximum address space so that they can be maximum
   convenient (internal hierarchy and allocation, etc.)
 - having a one-size-fits-all model for end users, to discourage bureaucracy
 - giving machines on a link the benefit of autoconfiguration
 - not wasting a /64 on links, and /48s on users

as you can easily see, there is no way any policy can fulfill all of this
at the same time.

So the only thing that can ever reach consensus is a foul compromise
(or a miracle from the IETF).  

"Foul compromise" = "nobody is happy with it, but everybody can *live* 
with it".

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  81421

SpaceNet AG                    Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14      Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-234