[ppml] Draft ARIN Recomendation on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-centra l-00.txt, take 2
billd at cait.wustl.edu
Tue Nov 9 08:41:28 EST 2004
I agree with all of Michael's comments below.
CAIT at Washington University in St. Louis
Michael Dillon wrote the following responding to Leo Bicknell's draft:
> > ] ARIN on behalf of the ARIN membership and constituents believes
> > ] that the proposal in draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt will be
> > ] harmful to the future of the IPv6 Internet. ARIN
> recommends that
> > ] this draft NOT be adopted by the IETF.
> > ]
> > ] The particular issues seen by the ARIN membership and
> > ] that relate to ARIN are:
> I don't like this part. And I don't see how ARIN as an
> organization can make this kind of decision before the next
> member meeting.
> > ] - The proposal calls for a a new "RIR" type function by fiat,
> > ] than using the existing processes to create these sorts of
> > ] organizations.
> Seems like a valid complaint.
> > ] - The proposal calls for an RIR function to be
> provided at no fee
> > ] to the end user, and with no method of funding the
> RIR functions.
> > ] ARIN believes the IETF should not discuss fees in engineering
> > ] drafts.
> Seems to be picking nits. IETF drafts can say anything about
> anything. It's the RFCs that don't discuss fees and I would
> hope that is sorted out by the normal RFC editing process.
> > ] - The proposal is likely to create confusion in the ARIN region
> > ] about which prefixes can be routed on the Public Internet.
> This is confusing to me but then I haven't looked at the
> draft recently. Perhaps you could say what it is in the
> proposal that would create
> > ] - If the prefixes in the proposal become globally
> routed by major
> > ] Public Internet ISP's it has the potential to impact ARIN's
> > ] viability.
> I've always hated arguments that boil down to "If you do this
> it will hurt me".
> If you feel strongly about commenting on the draft, then
> please send your comments directly to the IETF mailing list.
> If you talked to people at the ARIN meeting and want to pass
> on their concerns then
> please do so. But I think you are wasting your time with this
> idea of drafting a letter that ARIN in toto will send to the IETF.
> I don't think the ARIN membership decision making cycle time
> is conducive to commenting on IETF drafts. If you really feel
> that ARIN needs greater involvement in IETF activities then I
> suggest that we should urge the AC or the Trustees or the
> ARIN employees to take on that role.
> --Michael Dillon
More information about the ARIN-PPML