[75864] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Nov 26 04:35:22 2004
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:31:59 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>, ppml@arin.net
In-Reply-To: <76A94B8C-3F89-11D9-B165-000A95CD987A@muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==========B09C24AF8B7810A48252==========
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
> What you really want is PI assignments in IPv6, and you shouldn't be
> changing the PA allocation rules or interpretation of these rules so you
> can get this under the radar.
>
I'm not trying to get anything under the RADAR. Yes, I want to see us
modify the policy to cover allocations and assignments, much as the
current IPv4 policy does. However, I'm not suggesting it under the RADAR,
I've been quite up front about it. ULA is an attempt to slide something
under the radar, and, that is one of the reasons I have opposed it.
> Tony Hain said he's going to ask for a BoF at the next IETF meeting on
> somewhat aggregatable PI space in IPv6, I suggest the RIRs don't take any
> action in this area until then.
>
Even if the RIRs started working on a draft now (which I think is a good=20
idea),
it would be at least a year before anything real happened on it. As such, =
I
think there will be no difficulty incorporating the output of Tony's BOF
into such policy well before it was adopted.
Owen
--=20
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
--==========B09C24AF8B7810A48252==========
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFBpvgPn5zKWQ/iqj0RAsJMAKCSmB3S9Jay7tiXGPKYarGmCOHFlQCeMHL7
sAm/ofmEqujeBoVRnJt3eJg=
=PL/Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==========B09C24AF8B7810A48252==========--
