[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR ipv6 Allocation
Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Tue Aug 24 09:47:09 CEST 2004
On 24-aug-04, at 4:48, Jeff Williams wrote: > Iljitsch and all, ^^^^^ No kidding... > None of this addresses the outstanding problems with Ipv6 or ipv6 > allocation concerns and existing as well as discussed problems. > They are "at least" the following: I don't think I get what you're talking about. > 1. ) Invalid or incorrect minimal allocation. What is invalid or incorrect here? > 2.) Still existing cost increases for allocations. What cost? > 3.) Still existing security/privacy "holes" in ipv6 What holes? There is no difference with IPv4. > 4.) Routing notification for new allocation practice or method. What on Earth is a "routing notification"? > 5.) Routing table maintenance Best practices and/or policy, Well, there is some of this but since the RIRs seem to have trouble living up to their own policies this is problematic. (See http://www.bgpexpert.com/archive2003q4.php ) > and enforcement of same. Yes, we don't do this in the internet. (And go fix the IPv4 table first if you feel so inclined.) > 6.) Dealing with "Dark" existing and/or future allocated addresses. Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Now if we could have a mechanism to determine resolving DNS servers automatically in IPv6 and have visible IPv6 addresses for the root DNS servers we'd be well on our way. And of course we still need multihoming in IPv4 and the IETF has to quit rewriting the RFCs all the time. > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: I know what I wrote, so P L E A S E don't repeat it in its entirety!!! I'm really getting sick and tired of people who are too lazy to quote in a decent manner.
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]