[ipv6-wg@localhost] Re: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: nationalsecurity

[jfcm <]

At 23:42 08/12/03, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> I'm not sure if it needs to be a /32 or if it needs to be just a single 
> one, but I fully agree this should be documented very well and in a 
> central place. Buried somewhere on a RIR website isn't good enough. (Try 
> finding the the micro allocation list on the ARIN site without help from 
> Google.)
>
> I think this means it must be an RFC. RIR documents just don't have the 
> same standing in the community, and, apparently, quality control.
I suggest ISO should define an international trans network numbering scheme 
that could be adopted as the IPv6.010 numbering plan, the same way as the 
ccTLD list is the ISO 3166 2 letters list, and IDNA uses unicodes etc.

This would relieve IETF from these user, political, etc. oriented 
inapropriate controversies. IPv6 is supposed to support 6 plans. Whatever 
relates to a specific plan kills that possibilty. The "IPv6 inside" label 
should only be granted when everything is transparent to the current 
IPv6.001 and may function the same with IPv6.010, whatever IPv6.010 may be. 
As an IPv6 user this is my legitimate expectation to show me that IPv6.111 
will most probably work if 001 and 010 are orthogonal.

My suggestion for 010 is orthogonal to 001 from structure, management etc. 
to economical model.
jfc