Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

> I think you need to go and check the RIR policies. They are not the
> same. They are similar, but not the same.

Addresses are hard to get and I need to pay. Those are the parts that
bother me. The rest, I don't care much about...  :-)

> 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.

Ok, I'll hold you to that when we've solved the multihoming problem.
(Address space isn't scarce anymore with v6 of course.)

> 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.

Not at all. What I'm saying is that if we have a choice whether the IETF
or the RIRs can make a certain policy, this is a no-brainer: the IETF.
Only when the scarcity issues come into play you need the RIRs. That's
what they're good at, lets not distract them with anything else.

But this is all moot most of the time, as the RIRs do existing stuff
while the IETF tries to build new stuff. So the overlap isn't that big.