Alain Durand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|On Feb 27, 2004, at 5:23 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
[...]
|> But this
|> begs the question of why an end site would ever want to use such
|> addresses. I.e, this raises such questions as:
|>
|> - under what conditions would an address be reclaimed?
|
|to be decided by the entity(ies) managing the allocation and their
|customer by contract.
|
|> - who does the revokation?
|
|the entity(ies) responsible for the allocations.
|
|> - what recourse does the end site have?
|
|See the contract between the chosen entity and the customer.
Your proposed policy where the "chosen entity" has full discretion in how
it contracts with its customers does exactly what you claim to want to
avoid: it creates a valuable asset consisting of the right to rent the
addresses. I ask for the third time: who decides who is allowed to be in
the profitable business that you are creating? Who decides who receives
the asset that you are creating? How do they decide?
|Again, this is policy, not protocol. i.e. this is not IETF business.
|
|
|
|>
|> My understanding is that the whole point of these allocations being
|> "permanent" is that once and ends site gets one, it can use it without
|> worry that it will have to give it up at some future time.
|>
|> Also, why do we need to make these allocations "non permantent"?
|
|I'm not asking to make them non permanent in the document, but rather
|not to
|specify in an IETF document that they are permanent. This is different.
|If the entity in charge of the allocations decide that permanent
|allocation
|is the way they want to run their business, fine.
How will you guarantee that the option to provide permanent allocation will
be available to the entity? Your proposed policy glosses over the issue of
registry selection in a competitive, for-profit environment.
|> Is
|> there some future scenario we're worried about where it becomes
|> important to be able to reclaim these addresses? I.e., are they ever
|> going to become a scarce resource?
|
|I'm worried about the scenario where IETF does policy and not protocols
|anymore.
You are no less proposing policy than the current draft. The problem
with your policy is that it omits a key detail which will almost certainly
be filled in later in such a way as to perpetuate and enforce the rental
model for these new addresses.
You have claimed that your policy would allow a free and competitive
market to serve its customers, but the market is not free. In order to
enter the market an entity needs an address delegation. The requirements
placed on the entity to receive that delegation will constrain the business
models available to that entity. If the entity has to pay a recurring fee
(or even a large initial fee) to be in the business then the entity will
not be able to offer cheap/free permanent allocations to its customers.
Dan Lanciani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
