LeaderTelecom B.V. wrote:
Dear Gert,
Agree with your opinion regards RFC 2050.
Main idea this RFC: This document describes the registry system for the distribution of globally unique Internet address space and registry operations.
Goals:
1. Conservation: Fair distribution of globally unique Internet address space
according to the
operational needs of the end-users and Internet Service Providers operating
networks using this
address space. Prevention of stockpiling in order to maximize the lifetime
of the Internet address
space.
This doesn't required anymore. While RIPE doesn't have free space for distributing.
I am sorry, but this is simply wrong. The NCC still *does* have addresses (Ipv4) to distribute. that's the reason for having all the "Last /8" stuff (an the bickering :-) ) There's also the provision for the IANA to re-distribute address blockas to the RIRs, that get returned.
It was very useful before and respect for people who wrote it while principes in this RFC were very useful long time.
IMHO, they are still as appropriate now as they were from the beginning.
But for now it looks as deprecated and not updated.
I do agree with regard to the "not updated". Anyone is free to start the process of updating or replacing an RFC, though.
Some words from RFC which looks like depriceated:
...Currently there are three regional IRs established; InterNIC serving North America, RIPE NCC serving Europe, and AP- NIC serving the Asian Pacific region...
...3.2 Network Engineering Plans..
2. a description of the network topology
3. a description of the network routing plans, including the routing protocols to be used as well as any limitations..
-- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. Team
URL: [1]http://www.LeaderTelecom.nl/ - IP- addresses URL: [2]http://www.GetWildcard.com/nl - WildCard SSL certificates
11.10.2012 17:46 - Gert Doering написал(а): Hi,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:27:48PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber wrote:
Gert Doering wrote:
[...]
There are traces of needs-based still present in the system
AFAIK RFC2050 still is in effect.
All more recent suggestions to get it modified or retired were not
successful.
I got to understand that messing around with it [c|w]ould have far-reaching unwanted consequences for the whole IP Address Distribution System.
Like we have Addresses to Distribute :-) - the IPv4 run-out has fairly fundamental consequences for the environment in which we operate, and at least one of the pillars of RFC2050 ("conservation") is not exactly relevant anymore.
I disagrre. If your statement would be true, then we wouldn't need the L/8 stuff to begin with. The community seems to (still) think otherwise.
I consider RFC2050 a very useful document to establish principles, but it can not be binding - and in doubt, the bottom-up community based process will win.
Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Wilfried