RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

Unlike the IETF RIRs do have to respond to market pressure.  RIRs do
take into consideration the IETF standards.  But not as gospel.
/jim

 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@nominum.com] 
>Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 9:57 PM
>To: Masataka Ohta
>Cc: Bob Hinden; Randy Bush; multi6@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
>
>
>Ohta-san,
>
>On Friday, March 14, 2003, at 02:35  PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>>> Perhaps, say, Thomas Narten, Takeshi Arano, or David Kessens could
>>> work
>>> with ARIN and the other RIRs to come up with IPv6 policies?
>> None of them is IETF.
>
>True, however at least two of the three are quite active in IPv6 
>related issues within the IETF and I think it safe to assume technical 
>concerns from the IETF (and elsewhere) were taken into account during 
>the development of the current v6 policies.
>
>> IPng WG has no idea on addressing architecture for multihoming.
>> IPng WG has no idea on how global routing table size should
>> be managed.
>
>Yes.  However, the RIRs have come under significant criticism in the 
>past for being perceived as road blocks to IPv6 allocations and have, 
>in fact, reduced the requirements for v6 space.  Even in this list, 
>they are criticized for making obtaining address space 'hard'.
>
>Seems they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
>
>Rgds,
>-drc
>
>
>