Roger,
On 13/01/2013 12:51, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Arturo Servin <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Roger,
>>
>> Perhaps I am being naive, but why not just give the space to IANA and
>> then they assign to RIRs?
>
> No other reason than to keep it simple, try to avoid involving the RIR
> policy part to get the experiment going. That's also why there would
> be a wg @IETF that will hand out space, not the different RIRs.
> They're only involvment would only be if one of them took on the task
> of keeping track of the space.
>
>
I am not sure that any of the scenarios (to one RIR vs IANA) could be
said simpler than the other. It just looks to me "more correct" to
follow the chain that we followed with IPv4, v6 and ASNs: IETF -> IANA
-> RIRs.
About the mechanisms, IANA also has them (rDNS, recording space, etc.)
>
>
> That's also why Sander Steffann's earlier mail included one piece that
> wasn't what I suggested:
>
> <snip>
>>> The reason for asking a RIR is that they already have the
>>> infrastructure in place... and for those that read ALL of the text in
>>> my original post, I suggested we asked RIPE :)
>>
>> Request noted :-)
>>
>> If this WG chooses to ask RIPE: The RIPE NCC will need a RIPE policy to use
>> when allocating/assigning address space. Once we have a clear document that
>> describes the basics we can work on that in the RIPE Address Policy WG.
>
>
> RIPE policy would not be the one describing or deciding on how the
> space should be given out, that would be upto LISP-EIB-wg@IETF/or
> something else. RIPE's job in my above suggestion would be to keep
> track of the space, providing RDNS and simliar..
>
>
>
> ... but what do all the other here think? Haven't had to many critical
> questions regarding the idea, or other comment for that sake.
>
>
>
>
Regards,
/as
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
