[ppml] whither 2005-1 (was: Policy without consensus? )

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Jan 23, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Lea Roberts wrote:

> hi Marshall -
>
> (I'm putting 2005-1 back in the subject line for later subject  
> searches :-)
>
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
>> I would care more, at present at least, that the IPv6 routing table
>> actually get USED. At present, it is, what, 1% of the total ?
>
> I don't believe it should be the case that address allocation policy
> should be developed to encourage the deployment of a protocol.   
> However,
> it is reasonable to do our best to not discourage deployment either...
> there are lots of opinons at play here and trying to find the  
> consensus
> course is not easy.
>
> as I'm sure you know well, the current allocation policy is the  
> result of
> the IAB/IESG recommendations in RFC3177.  as far as I know, the IETF
> oriented folks are still concerned about routing table growth and many
> were the ones who objected to the original 2005-1 proposal.  there  
> was a

I am an IETF oriented folk myself, and I have been down this road  
before.
This, my comments re Multicast. We spent way too much time worrying  
about problems
of success; as (relative) success is coming, it isn't coming in the  
way that
we worried about.

Just an observation.

Marshall


> flurry of discussion on the RIPE IPv6 list lately regarding the  
> perceived
> need for more IPv6 PI space, but I'm not sure they've reached any
> consensus either.
>
>> One thing we learned in multicast is not to worry about problems  
>> caused
>> by success until you actually have something like success.
>
> I guess part of the question is whether IPv6 can be judged a  
> success just
> because it works as "IPv4 with bigger addresses"....   sorry,  /Lea
>
>> Regards
>> Marshall
>>
>>
>> On Jan 23, 2006, at 6:11 PM, Lea Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> so do you gentlemen believe that we should allow unlimited
>>> allocation of
>>> IPv6 PI space to whomever wants to multihome and just consider the
>>> possible routing table scaling problems to be something that will be
>>> dealt with later?  and you also don't worry about carrying over the
>>> "IPv4
>>> early adopter bonus" into the brave new IPv6 world?  assuming of
>>> course
>>> that the policy might have to be more restrictive later?
>>>
>>> 				just curious,  		/Lea
>>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>>
>>>>       On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Howard, W. Lee wrote:
>>>>>> Well, the last PP 2005-1 was completely unworkable. I
>>>>>> supported it because
>>>>>> it was better than nothing - but only barely. (Many) People
>>>>>> who voted for it
>>>>>> were holding their noses and voting yes in the hope of
>>>>>> improving it later.
>>>>
>>>> Yup, that's certainly true of me, and of everyone else I know who
>>>> voted
>>>> for it.  It wasn't acceptable as voted, but there was nothing else
>>>> on the
>>>> table, and nothing else we could vote for.  Yes, that's a really
>>>> major
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>>> That puts us in a difficult position.  The process says we can
>>>>> only ratify a policy is there is evidence of consensus.  The
>>>>> only exception would be in case of an emergency, and I think
>>>>> we're a couple of years from an emergency.
>>>>
>>>> I think we're a couple of years into an emergency.
>>>>
>>>>                                 -Bill
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PPML mailing list
>>>> PPML at arin.net
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML mailing list
>>> PPML at arin.net
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>>
>