On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:05:50PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
1. The current system is, quite frankly, shit. It is embarrassing that the RIPE region has continued to put up with such a poorly managed way to track number resources. Any mechanism to track these resources is better than what we have now (which is NOTHING).
Oh, I agree absolutely. Not only is it a good idea to know where the space is, it is also a good idea to bring these end-users into the community in some way or the other. This is after all what the founders of the Internet intended :)
2. No policy is going to make everyone happy. We have worked at this for many months now (the proposal is 2007-01, not 2008-01). At some point we have to recognize that what we have is not perfect, but will ever be perfect, so we should adopt it anyway. To quote Voltaire: Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien (the perfect is the enemy of the good).
Sure, but it is like with laws, if you get it wrong, it's next to impossible to right it after the fact.
If the "barrier" you want to remove for IPv6 is knowing who is actually using the address space, I think that you are misguided. That "barrier" needs to be firmly in place, before we end up with the same mess in IPv6 as we have in IPv4.
That's not my intention at all, see above.
I've seen some mention of a "routing slot tax", I think this idea needs to be stepped on. Hard. Now.
Since this is not a part of the proposal justification or details (I think), we should not have to worry about it.
I agree it sounds quite awful though. :)
It's not part of the proposal but some have suggested setting a high financial barrier to discourage use of PI(v6) in order to avoid "pollution" of the routing table. I would not like to see this essentially useful proposal hi- jacked for that agenda.
Does this policy mention changing justification at all? I don't think it does, but I might have missed it.
It doesn't, there isn't any policy for PIv6 yet, I guess this would have to be discussed in the context of this (new) policy. cheers, Sascha