On Jun 6, 2013, at 04:34 , Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 5, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]> wrote: >> Personally, I'm waiting for us to agree that due to current RIR policies, if >> an ISP chooses to use semantic prefixes, then it will not be able to give >> users as much space as it would be able to give them if it chose not to use >> semantic prefixes. > > You will have to wait until someone from an RIR says "we won't allocate more > bits in cases like this." We have only heard from one person who works for > an RIR, and his opinion was that this was subject to negotiation, and not > clear-cut. But even if we did get some kind of firm commitment from RIRs > that they would never give an ISP extra bits, the ISP can still use bits from > the customer's allocation, unless RIRs change _that_ policy too (Owen's > absurd accusations of fraud notwithstanding).
While I am not employed by an RIR, I think I have a pretty good perspective on RIR policy, especially as it exists in the ARIN region and most especially the IPv6 policies in the ARIN region. I am the primary author of the current ARIN IPv6 ISP policy and a contributing author to the current end-user policy. I have also been actively involved in the ARIN policy process for more than a decade and am in my 6th year of service on the ARIN AC. While my statements in this forum are my opinion alone and not intended to represent ARIN or the AC, I think I bring a pretty good knowledge of both the letter and the intent of the policies as they exist today. If you claim you gave a customer a /48 and the customer reports that they are not allowed to exercise control over the use of that /48, then, you have not, in fact, delegated authority over that /48 as you have claimed to ARIN and that is, in fact, resource fraud in violation of ARIN policy. I'm not sure why you think this is an absurd claim. > We've gone around and around on this for days, and nobody's been able to make > a solid case for the proposition that there aren't enough bits to do semantic > prefixes. I think we don't need to argue that question anymore. Is that > _really_ the _only_ argument against semantic prefixes? There are enough bits to do it in your first allocation. Whether you will be able to get a subsequent allocation when you run out without achieving sufficiently efficient utilization later due to the inefficiencies imposed by this particular style of use is the open question. Other than you, most posters seem to recognize that this is, in fact, a likely drawback. Owen
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
