Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Kurt;

> >>>> 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.

How can you be sure they are consistent? What is the evaluation
criteria?

> They are at least not diverse enough to create 
> competition among the RIRs (which is what started this part of the 
> thread).

You are saying they are similar.

> > 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.

So, IETF must supply standards and technical rationals behind them.

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

I see no problem not to let RIRs assign IPv6 addresses.

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

							Masataka Ohtaq