[128125] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Sun Jul 25 02:41:06 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <31D602B9-4C7F-4958-AF08-88AEAD5CA504@delong.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:40:46 +0200
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 25, 2010, at 8:10 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The logical candidate to operate option 1 was the IANA, and the RIRs =
were having none of that. (For bonus points, explain how the RIRs =
continue to exist if everyone can have all of the =
guaranteed-globally-unique IPv6 space they wanted for free.)
> For bonus points, explain how the numbers side of IANA pays for =
anything when the RIRs stop funding it?
None of the "sides of IANA" pay for anything. There is no binding =
between what parties pay and what the ICANN staff who perform the IANA =
function do. In fact, those staff do not have any knowledge of whether =
any organization has paid anything (other than what they might hear =
incidentally).
The (zero dollar) IANA functions contract has 3 major functions, of =
which allocating blocks of addresses to the RIRs (and at the direction =
of the IETF) is one. Failure to perform that function would be =
interpreted as breach of contract, regardless of whether the RIRs pay =
anything to ICANN or not.
Regards,
-drc
