[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56



You can do this in multiple ways. You could (playing the devils
advocate) argue that the IETF should create technical specifications
that can handle the policy of the RIRs. After all, to a large extent
the RIR membership is most likely a better representation of
"end-users" (for some definition of users) than the IETF is.
I don't agree. Even if ISPs (overwhelming majority of RIR membership)
represent end-users better than vendors (majority of IETF membership)
there is only one RIR policy and users don't get to choose, while there
are usually many ways to implement some functionality that are endorsed
by the IETF and not being endorsed by the IETF doesn't mean it can't be
implemented or used. Having a choice is always the better option.
I think you need to go and check the RIR policies. They are not the same. They are similar, but not the same.

Besides that, the RIRs have a similar policy in order not create competition for a resource that is considered limited and i order to limit routing table growth (the problem that is trying to be solved by having the IETF set the policy) . If the resource is not limited and routing table growth is not an issue, let each RIR set their own policy.

Now, if your argument is that we should have multiple RIRs that compete with cost between eachother - that is definitely out of scope for the IETF. I then suggest you take this to the LIR-WG, ARIN policy list etc.

- kurtis -