[address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
Fred Baker fred at cisco.com
Fri May 11 16:14:41 CEST 2007
On May 11, 2007, at 6:35 AM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote: > I'm not going to quibble with the wording of the draft at this > point. I just wonder whether it is appropriate for the RIR mailing > lists to be used as a working group for writing Internet drafts? I don't see why not, but... 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. One technical question I would ask. What does a "Central Authority" and "IANA Assignment" have to do with a "Local" address of any type? It seems in context that the major issue is an address prefix that is not advertised to neighboring ISPs and can be generally configured to be refused if offered by a neighboring ISP, in the same way that an RFC 1918 address is not advertised and is generally refused between IPv4 networks. In any draft on this topic, regardless of where it is discussed, if central assignment is in view, the reason for having such assignment should be clearly stated.