[128145] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Jul 25 11:49:23 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <EE331E51-982B-4583-B43F-B6DC2A51BC4A@virtualized.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:48:02 -0700
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 24, 2010, at 11:40 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> 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?
>=20
> 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).
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Regards,
> -drc
The point was more that if the RIRs go away, IANA loses significant =
funding.
Owen
