[ppml] whither 2005-1 (was: Policy without consensus? )
lea.roberts at stanford.edu
Mon Jan 23 21:50:43 EST 2006
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
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
> 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
> 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
More information about the ARIN-PPML