On May 30, 2013, at 11:28 PM, Sheng Jiang <[email protected]> wrote:
> Agree. The network providers should know they cannot get more addresses
> because they use their block for semantic, which lead to lower address
> utility rate.
>
> Will make this clear in the new section "potential pitfalls".
Sheng -
It would be very helpful to put that clarifying point into the draft
text, i.e. ("cannot get more addresses because they use their block
for semantic"). Note that it would just as helpful to include the
converse (i.e. "ISPs should be able to get sufficiently sized address
blocks to allow semantic prefix use"); it really doesn't matter which
phrase you include as long as the intent is clear to everyone. Your
draft is very likely create less controversy if it states that one
cannot get more addresses automatically because of semantic use, but
ultimately the most important point is clarity of the intent either way.
While the IETF does not set RIR policy, IETF recommendations are often
raised in the RIR policy development process. This means that an RFC
(even informational, even individual contribution) may be raised as
justification for why RIR policy should be changed. Clearly, a working
group output RFC and/or BCP carries more weight in the discussions that
follow, but it is not inconceivable that publication of an esoteric IPv6
use case (which requires larger ISP allocations) would kickoff discussions
for changes to IPv6 ISP allocation policy. The tradeoffs in appropriate
management of the vast (but still fixed) IPv6 free pool will obviously
need to be considered, as will the actual community demand for that type
of technological solution, but recognize that the RIRs job is facilitate,
not hinder, the distribution of IP addresses and that means trying to
accommodate whatever technical work comes out of the IETF.
FYI,
/John
Disclaimer: My views alone. I am unaware of any formal consideration
by ARIN (or the IETF, for that matter) of how IETF RFC's
should interact with the RIR policy process, but the above
ramblings reflect my best understanding of relationship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
