[ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate question
Yes, I know Geoff Houston is behind both the rfc draft and the policy
proposals, but I don't find it relevant, just because it's the same person
doesn't mean it will ever become an RFC. Isn't the RFC intended to outline
what the new AS's are, how the they will be used, make IANA the authority to
delegate them to the registrars and give something for the vendors to work
with for implementation? (At the very least the latter!!) Just because the
system is broke, does that mean that everyone (including the registrars)
should just go off and do what they want? That seems like the path to
anarchy, especially considering that this is something in which should
require global acceptance and implementation.
And let me play devil's advocate and ask, is the system really broken? or
does it just take too long? Was the system broke last fall when the draft
was created? If the author knew it to be broke, why submit a proposal to
individual registrars that would change policy in about 6 months, for
something you knew wouldn't get through the rfc process by the time it was
implemented, and more importantly wouldn't be supported by any vendors?
If the plan is to circumvent the rfc process, to motivate vendors, by going
directly to individual registrars because the process is "broken", then what
other process can be or is in place to make sure that all registrars agree
to hand out whatever crazy new number resource thing someone dreams up?
What happens when one registrar agrees to hand out something, and another
registrar says no.. and there is no parent organization (IANA) doling out
ranges, because no one ever informed them? What happens on January 1, 2007
when someone asks ARIN to give them a new 32 bit AS.. will ARIN have any to
I don't disagree that the net has to work in the meantime.. it just seems if
we go down this path, there is potential for it not to work in the future!
I see ARIN AC referring author's to a better path, as an attempt to help
keep things in sync.
On 10/6/06, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
> > Last spring we looked at 2005-9 (4 Byte AS Numbers) The policy gives
> > clear dates over the next 3 years and starting in January of 2007, for
> > when ARIN should begin handing out 32 bit AS's and cease to make a
> > distinction between 32 bit and 16 bit AS's. However there is no RFC and
> > only a Internet draft created last fall, that discusses the creation of
> > 4byte AS's. It seemed to me that having the policy go through the local
> > registrar's process, was a bit premature considering that the draft has
> > not gone through the RFC process in IETF and that no hardware supports
> > it. This is a case, where I would have liked to see the AC refer the
> > author to the IETF process to flesh things out a bit more, and if
> > necessary with a nod that "we support this idea" .. As it is now, ARIN
> > can start handing out 32 bit AS's in a little more than 3 months and the
> > draft is still a "proposed standard" "waiting for write up"
> the internet stopped waiting for the ivtf a while ago. they are good at
> inventing and embellishing the complex and delaying the obvious. in the
> meantime, the net kinda has to work. it might be wise if the
> operational and administrative infrastructures kept in synch.
> [ btw, the author of the 4-byte asn policy proposal is the same poor sob
> who is working his draft through the ivtf sausage machine ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...