Roger Jorgensen wrote: [..] > too complicated and see bellow why. How can something which already exists, and thus is not new, be "too complicated"? Also as the text you referenced contained two different approaches to the problem, which part is actually "too complicated" and moreover why?
[..] > so we don't have to consider this at all!! All we have todo is let IANA, > or other parties getting this task from IANA, run something automatic on > THEIR side that give end-user direct request possibility without going > through a RIR or LIR. Direct assignments from IANA? They will be happy to do that. Of course, the RIR's can be taken out of the equation completely, still don't call the the fields "RIR Num" and "LIR Num" then as those are misnomers. > This solution suite the need at my workplace perfect. And how exactly does PI not suite that need? [..] > as someone said to me earlier... in times of complicated affairs and > compromisses you might have to swallow a few hard pills... I dislike the > thought of ULA-C but this latest suggestion is reasonable and not that > bad. Even with DNS in place it is acceptable for me personaly this way > of doing it. Thus first we try to actively fix a lot of things, and then to break them all again? Very not useful and a lot of work down the drain. > It has been said very clear by many that ULA-C is _not_ considered to be > global reachable Hold on, either it is LOCAL or it is GLOBAL, "not considered to be", means that it is expected to be quite reachable on most parts on the Internet. As such, is the expectancy simply that fc00::/7 will become the new addressing scheme overtaking all the RIR stuff that is in place already? If that is what is wanted, then just specify that fc00::/7 will be used for "Internet Part 2" which avoids RIRs and other such mechanisms. We then at least have clarity what is trying to be accomplished with this part of the address space. > and if we just can as strong as possible make it clear > DURING requesting of addresses we should be fine. The point is that we > have to show the enduser that they have agreed that they can NOT demand > global routing of this address space at all. No complicated text, keep > it simple. Endusers vote with their money. When a site is important enough to be reached, they will go to an ISP that will have access to that site and as such that space will be routed globally, the Internet will then simply change to include the other spaces. Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
