On 1/27/14, 12:20 , Leo Vegoda wrote:
David Conrad wrote:
On Jan 26, 2014, at 8:26 PM, Hannigan, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
That and isn't the IETF the right venue to carve out a specific from
a /8? This is in effect global policy, isn't it?
I suppose APNIC could throw it back to IANA (maybe? not sure how an
RIR can throw a /24 back to IANA -- perhaps that needs a global policy
too?)
I don't want to comment on which venue is appropriate. However, I can
report that we have some experience with this kind of thing based on
ARIN-prop-154, which ended up with RFC 6598. In that case, ARIN made a /10
available and we registered it in the IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address
Registry when the draft was approved. The implementation of things like
this is generally not a problem.
Regards,
Leo Vegoda
ICANN, IANA
Hello, from cold as {expletive deleted} Minnesota, were the low last
night was -17F (-27C) air temperature, with the wind chill near the
crossover point for Fahrenheit and Celsius at about -40.
----
When I first saw this policy last weekend, I was convinced it belonged
in the Special-Purpose Address Registry and MUST go through the IETF.
But, I decided not to comment until I had time to actually read the
proposal.
So, I've read the proposal, and I have to say I no longer think it
belongs in Special-Purpose Address Registry, at least not yet. The
proposal is for a non-exclusively registered block. 1.2.3.0/24 will
simply be registered to multiple entities. And, any unregistered use
would be technically invalid.
So, I have a few thoughts;
First, I want to confirm the issuance of a ROA for any and all use of
the 1.2.3.0/24 block is mandatory by the policy as proposed?
I think the policy should also require the full list of registered
authorized users be published along with the originating ASNs to be
used. My recommendation is that the APNIC database points to a web page
were all registered authorized users and their associated originating
ASNs are published.
I'd like to suggest this allocation be made with an experimental status
for now, without any time limit, but with predetermined review in two
years. I'm not sure anyone is really sure this will be good practice or
not. But, by designating this experimental, there is no connotation
that APNIC or anyone else is recommending this practice, at least at
this time. Further, it makes clear the APNIC community retains the
option to pull this back if it proves to be a stupendously bad idea.
so, in two years the community reviews the idea and may; continue the
experiment, make it production under the proposed multiple registration
process, propose a draft to the IETF and put it in the Special-Purpose
Address Registry, or pull the plug on the idea and officially notify all
registered users.
If the publication of the authorized users were clarified and its given
an experimental status I would, fully support this proposal.
Thanks
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: [email protected]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
