[ppml] for your reading pleasure

[Owen DeLong]

> I am surprised that the draft does not even promote aggregation in  
> assignment policies.
> Note this at the end of Section 2, where it says
> 
>     A key goal, however, is to avoid the need for a site to renumber  
> into a
>     smaller number of subnet bits when adding a new prefix.
> 
> As I read it, this implies that RIR's should (or, at least, could)  
> hand out non-contiguous blocks
> when end sites need more address space. It seems to approve of this,  
> as long as the new block is the same size or larger than the existing  
> ones.
> 
I believe the intent there, instead, is to encourage RIRs to hand out
large enough blocks or do sparse enough allocations that a non-contiguous
block is not necessary.

> I think that the minimum any IPv6 assignment policy should do is to  
> promote the maximum amount of aggregation possible, and that any  
> recommendation coming out of the IETF / IESG / IAB should clearly  
> state that as a goal.
> 
Yes, but, it should, where possible, attempt to do so without requiring
sites to renumber.

Another key provision of this draft which I think is somewhat important
(albeit unlikely to have much real world effect) is that it provides formal
recognition that address assignment policy is an RIR public policy issue
and not an IETF design or IAB architecture issue.  The RIRs will make
address allocation policy, and, if necessary will ignore IETF overreaching
in this area.  I think it is better if the RFCs provide recognition of
this reality and do not overreach.

Owen

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20060310/71e51f48/attachment.sig>