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.
> > > They don't have to be similar but they have to be consistent.
> > Which is what I meant and what they are.
> How can you be sure they are consistent? Note that they may not
> be similar.
I know the three policies fairly well. They are not similar but they 
are fairly consistent. They are at least not diverse enough to create 
competition among the RIRs (which is what started this part of the 
thread).

> > > > 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.
> > > Wrong. If the resource is not limited and routing table growth is
> > > not an issue, don't let each RIR set their own policy. Just assign
> > > as much resource as demanded.
> > The resource is limited.
> Then, we need some policy to deny some assignment based on the
> technical reasoning on why, how and how seriously the resource
> is limited.
The resource is limited as there is a fixed number of addresses. The 
RIRs was created to handled and manage policy for a limited resource. 
Let's use them for that. The IETF was created to develop standards let 
them handle that.

I fail to see what problem you are trying to point out here.

- kurtis -