[ppml] Metric for rejecting policy proposals: AC candidate question
I feel the need to pre-emptively clarify and say, that it is not my intent
to say that this draft will or will not become and RFC. Rather that, Geoff
being involved with both the proposed policy AND the RFC does not add
anything to the speed or odds that this will become an RFC, as I doubt that
the policy being passed by the RIR's will affect the RFC process.
And for Geoff, I had looked at the history of the draft prior to the ARIN
meeting in the spring and just before I sent my previous email. I agree it
seems to be a timing issue.. and it is a shame that the IETF process takes
so dreadfully long, and gets little attention from the community.. but the
question remains, will ARIN have any 32 bit addresses to hand out in
On 10/7/06, heather skanks <heather.skanks at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> give out?
> 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 ]
> > randy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...