Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] New policy proposal: IPv6 ULA-central
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Tue Apr 3 18:00:47 UTC 2007
To make it short:
1) The draft introduces the concept and one way to manage this, however, in
section 7.0, IANA considerations, is already indicated "... If deemed
appropriate, the authority may also consist of multiple organizations
performing the allocation authority duties".
2) Even if only L=1 is defined, the entire block is on IANA hands, as it is
a /7, not /8.
3) The definition of L=0 is done by this document. We just need to move it
forward again, which as said before, can be done in parallel with the PDP in
the RIRs. I don't think there is any rule that says "must be done in serial
mode" and if this helps to win time, why not ?
> De: Alain Patrick AINA <aalain at trstech.net>
> Organización: technologies réseaux et Solutions (www.trstech.net)
> Responder a: <aalain at trstech.net>, AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
> <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Fecha: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:07:20 +0000
> Para: <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Asunto: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] New policy proposal: IPv6 ULA-central
>> The proposal suggest that this (AfriNIC) RIR do it for this region, and the
>> same for each one of the other RIRs.
>> I guess it may happen that the NRO could decide, if the proposal goes thru
>> all the regions to implement a central registry instead of 5 "distributed"
>> central registries for this purpose,
> The draft proposes a unique central authority, which differs from your
>> but I guess this is out of the scope
>> of the proposal, and could be a "next step". I'm not sure if this could
>> work, but I can imagine that if we reach consensus in every region, it may
>> made sense to have a single registry, if it reduces the cost, and this
>> being funded by the NRO common funds.
>> I believe there has not been a similar case before.
>> Anyway, as said, the proposal here is to talk about the *AfriNIC* scope, at
>> least at this stage.
>> The draft is expired, but as you know can be revived at any time, just with
>> a new submission. The goal is to do so, in parallel with the advancement of
>> the PDP in the different regions. The important think here is also to
>> realize that the space is already allocated to IANA by RFC4193.
> RFC4193 only defines L=1
> IETF does not define yet L=0, and i guess we need L=0 defines before we move
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
More information about the RPD