Re: Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs
Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.ietf.ops |
|---|---|
| Organization | University of Auckland |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2010-11-11 21:27, Victor Kuarsingh wrote: > On 11/11/10 4:10 PM, "james woodyatt" <[email protected]> wrote: ... >> That doesn't answer the question. For clarity, I asked the same question >> twice, worded a little differently the second time. Here it is again... >> >>>> What advantage is there in directing *IANA* to do it? >> I understand why you want to use a prefix not listed in RFC 1918. I don't >> understand why getting it from IANA will be any better for you than if you get >> it from Joe's House Of IPv4 Addresses. >> > The goal here was that in aggregate, the provides use less global space for > a common use. It is more efficient for providers to share a block, then all > go to the RIRs and ask for their own slice. That isn't quite the question, I think. So let me answer the actual question: What advantage is there in directing *IANA* to do it? The answer is in RFC 2650 "Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority". Under this agreement, the IETF *can* direct IANA to allocate IP address space for technical purposes. See the subclause (b) in clause 4.3. There is no other route by which the IETF can direct IANA to allocate address space, and the IETF certainly can't direct the RIRs in any way whatever. So to answer James, the advantage is that the IETF *can* direct IANA, but the IETF can't direct the RIRs. I don't believe the IETF *should* do this, but as the initial drafter and a signatory of the MoU published as RFC 2650, I thought I should clarify what's really going on here. Getting this proposal through IETF consensus and IESG approval would result in a direct order to IANA. Brian . _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops