[ppml] ULA

 thats an interesting take on my world view... but i would
 not be so bold as to put words in your mouth.  thoughts in
 your mind - sure. you should preface your remarks w/ "I think" 
 when you describe my thoughts/views to leave yourself enough 
 wiggle room when you turn out to be wrong.

 that said, if ICANN delegates the c.f.ip6.arpa to a private
 organization who's sole job is to act as a "title office" -
 then that group becomes a global scale RIR in fact.  Just
 because you don't see it (closing your eyes won't help) 
 does not remove that reality.

 and so - i am uncomfortable with the IETF creating, ex nilo,
 a functional RIR outside the existing system.

--bill


On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 01:03:37AM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> >  so paul... do you mind that the IETF creates a new RIR?
> 
> i didn't, and don't, see delegation of the ULA IN-ADDR space as semantically
> similar to creating a new RIR.  i would mind IETF creating RIRs, since there
> is a working existing process for same and IETF isn't part of that process.
> 
> for lurkers here, i'd like to explain in more detail.  bmanning does not see
> "the internet" as a static entity in the way it's often described.  to bill,
> what "the internet" is depends on where you connect to it, what routing
> policy you have, what routing policy other people have, what's up or down at
> the moment, and what time of the day, week, year, or century it then is.  i
> struggled for a long decade or so to reconcile the common "newtonian" view
> with bill's "relativistic" view, and i'm convinced that bill's perception is
> a useful one to keep in mind while contemplating internet-related topics.
> 
> but knowing this helps understand the context of bmanning's question above:
> from bill's point of view, ULA as registered at SIXXS.NET would be just as
> much part of "the internet" as any PI or PA space ever was.  outlawing ULA
> in "the core" would be a meaningless act in bill's world view, since it's
> already the case that a lot of non-ULA space is in common every day use but
> never appears in "the core".
> 
> my answer, in that context, is that i see a difference between ULA+SIXXS and
> PA/PI since one is allowed in "the core" and one is not, and i therefore do
> not think that delegating the ULA in-addr prefix to SIXXS would create an RIR.
> 
> i hope this helps understand what would otherwise be a very terse exchange.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.