[address-policy-wg] RE: [ppml] Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
michael.dillon at bt.com michael.dillon at bt.com
Mon May 14 10:46:56 CEST 2007
> If anyone want to discuss about the ULA-central ID, I encourage to bring > that discussion to the ipv6 WG mailing list, no need to create a new one. > For discussions about the policy proposal, use the corresponding RIR mail > exploder. I don't know if Fred Baker's message on the IETF list made it to the RIR lists, but he offers a single central discussion place for the central ULA concept. -----quoted from IETF list--------- In your email, you noted the disjoint nature of the RIRs and the need to cross-post or whatever. Speaking as chair of IPv6 Operations (v6ops at ops.ietf.org), I would invite you and all those interested in the effort to use the v6ops list for the purpose and the v6ops working group as a venue to do the work. If you would like, we can arrange a v6ops interim meeting at the RIR meeting of your choice, or it could be discussed in the currently-planned meeting in the third week of July in Chicago. --------------- So, now there is no longer any need to complain that the IETF is too slow or that the RIRs need to work in parallel. Anyone can join the v6ops list (instructions here http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/v6ops-charter.html ) and anyone can propose how central ULAs could be made to work. And for those who wish to meet face-to-face, there is an opportunity in Chicago in July. Hopefully, the v6ops list will look at other alternatives such as using AS numbers to define a block of addresses similar to the way GLOP defined multicast addressing in RFC 3180 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3180.txt --Michael Dillon