[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
McTim
dogwallah at gmail.com
Tue Mar 19 19:43:18 CET 2013
Hi John, I had thought I had included a link to it in my ealrler post, but apparently not, so here it is: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:08 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote: > On Mar 19, 2013, at 11:39 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think that perhaps we should all read the latest draft of the RFC2050 update: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 >> >> 1) Allocation Pool Management: Due to the fixed lengths of IP >> addresses and AS numbers, the pools from which these resources >> are allocated are finite. As such, allocations must be made >> in accordance with the operational needs of those running the >> networks that make use of these number resources and by taking >> into consideration pool limitations at the time of allocation. > > McTim - > > Note that you are referencing an Internet Draft which is only > barely announced and yet to be considered by the community. > The document is actually lists several additional goals > (i.e. Hierarchical Allocation and Registration Accuracy) and > they are to be considered as a whole, not taken singularly: agreed, did not mean to imply otherwise, but only meant to highlight (by quoting) the bit that conflicts with this proposal. > > "These goals may sometimes conflict with each other or be in conflict > with the interests of individual end-users, Internet service > providers, or other number resource consumers. Careful analysis, > judgment, and cooperation among registry system providers and > consumers at all levels via community-developed policies is necessary > to find appropriate compromises to facilitate Internet operations." > > (This is very similar to language in the existing RFC 2050.) > > I have no view on the policy proposal, either supporting or against, > but want to make clear that the RIPE community should decide what > is best for it overall and not feel constrained by a reference to > just one of these goals (whether from existing or revised RFC2050) agreed. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]