[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC

Jordi, Doug,

On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 01:38:29PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
> If I didn't misunderstood him, the only reason they are allocating
> /23 blocks to the RIRs is because they can't do anything on that,
> unless IETF change it.
>
> I believe the document being followed for this is RFC2450
> (ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2450.txt), authored by Bob
> Hinden (copied).

The only thing that the rfc says is:

---
The IANA will assign small blocks (e.g., few hundred) of TLA ID's to
registries. The registries will assign the TLA ID's to organizations
meeting the requirements for TLA ID assignment. When the registries
have assigned all of their TLA ID's they can request that the IANA
give them another block. The blocks do not have to be contiguous.
---

Note that it doesn't define this block to be a /23 at all.

Also, please note the title of the document:

'Proposed TLA and NLA Assignment Rules'

(proposals are no rules as far as I understand the english language)

and then check out:

RFC3587 which explicitly says:

---
This document makes RFC 2374 and the TLA/NLA structure historic.
---   

which should implicitly make rfc2450 obsolete too since TLA/NLA don't
exist anymore (How can one have assignment rules for something that
doesn't exist?).

> So the only way for IANA to allocate /8 will be to update RFC2450.
> Is that right Doug ?

I would also be very interested whether IANA bases it's criteria on an
obsolete document that is only called 'a proposal'.

In the mean time, we can still make progress if the registries
actually ask for bigger blocks. They will either get them, or get
rejected by IANA and we will finally know the reasons.

I am more then happy to take this up in the IESG if there is some
action needed from our side, but in the mean time, let's first try to
get the registries to actually ask for the allocation so that we can
actually know whether there is a problem in the first place.

David Kessens
---