On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Richard Hartmann
<richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 14:02, Turchanyi Geza <
turchanyi.geza@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is bad to make looser the address allocation rules at the RIR level.
> Address allocation rules MUST be the same for every regional Internet
> registry.
this will most likely speed up adaption. I agree that a similar policy
across all RIRs is desirable, though.
There is a common rule, the HD ratio. It is in an RFC.
> Therefore is is wise to create exceptional rules that could support 6RD,
> however, these rules should be discussed at global level and MUST be valid
> only for a limited period of time.
So you want to have a goldrush period where LIR grab a /29 because
they can and then exclude LIR which are created at a later date and/or
LIRs which did not act quickly enough from gaining the same resources?
Or should LIRs be required to return addresses assigned under this
policy? Will they be required to use this for 6rd only to ensure
simple returns? What about 6rdv2? Will this be covered under allowed
use? What about 7rd? What about something else entirely?
Definitely not. However, the current proposal might provoque a goldrush period.
Even worse: LIRs tend to merge. In the IPv4 world DEC asked for a class A space and got it. So did HP and Compaq Computers. Who owns these three class A today? HP, because Compaq swallowed DEC, then HP swallowed Compaq.
The current proposal pave the road for similar stories, even by very small LIRs. Goldrush belever will profit from this!
As I mentionned, even 6RD coukld fit in the old allocation framework and some people might invent even more need for addresses, if you allow loosing the rules.
Best,
Géza
.
--
Richard