[address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck
lists-ripe at c4inet.net
Wed Sep 17 23:54:55 CEST 2008
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:05:50PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > 1. The current system is, quite frankly, shit. It is embarrassing > that the RIPE region has continued to put up with such a poorly > managed way to track number resources. Any mechanism to track > these resources is better than what we have now (which is > NOTHING). Oh, I agree absolutely. Not only is it a good idea to know where the space is, it is also a good idea to bring these end-users into the community in some way or the other. This is after all what the founders of the Internet intended :) > 2. No policy is going to make everyone happy. We have worked at > this for many months now (the proposal is 2007-01, not 2008-01). > At some point we have to recognize that what we have is not > perfect, but will ever be perfect, so we should adopt it anyway. > To quote Voltaire: Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien (the perfect is > the enemy of the good). Sure, but it is like with laws, if you get it wrong, it's next to impossible to right it after the fact. > If the "barrier" you want to remove for IPv6 is knowing who is actually > using the address space, I think that you are misguided. That "barrier" > needs to be firmly in place, before we end up with the same mess in IPv6 > as we have in IPv4. That's not my intention at all, see above. > > I've seen some mention of a "routing slot tax", I think this idea > > needs to be stepped on. Hard. Now. > > Since this is not a part of the proposal justification or details (I > think), we should not have to worry about it. > > I agree it sounds quite awful though. :) It's not part of the proposal but some have suggested setting a high financial barrier to discourage use of PI(v6) in order to avoid "pollution" of the routing table. I would not like to see this essentially useful proposal hi- jacked for that agenda. > > Does this policy mention changing justification at all? I don't think it > does, but I might have missed it. It doesn't, there isn't any policy for PIv6 yet, I guess this would have to be discussed in the context of this (new) policy. cheers, Sascha
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]