Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

> > 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...  :-)
...for IPv4. For IPv6 this is true for a reason. The very reason that 
it's being argued that the IETF should 'help' the RIRs.

If you actually go and look at the policy you will find that IP 
addresses are allocated/assigned with various ease by various RIRs.

> > 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.
You will find that _a lot_ of people disagrees with you. They will say 
it's a no-brainer to have the RIRs set the policy. The IETF is not 
about policy.

> 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.
No. The RIRs do much more than that. They provided a number of services 
around a policy. Registration is one of them. Do you really expect the 
IETF to set the policy, have the RIRs register this and ask people to 
pay for this without having a thing to say? I think you need to go to 
some more RIR meetings.

> 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.
..which is why I fail to see what this discussion is about. The RIRs do 
registry and address policy. The IETF do architecture, protocols and 
some technology. There are well established rules to handle the overlap.

- kurtis -