![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
On 20-sep-2007, at 18:33, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
the RIRs will consider deprecating PI.
And that would be the same kind of consideration that has gone towards "deprecating" the holding of nearly 0.5% of the total IPv4 address space by a single organization? Despite the fact that
we're quickly running out of available IPv4 space and the number
of organizations involved is less than 50, visible efforts have yet
to materialize.
ARIN's counsel has told ARIN that it is unclear if they have legal standing to revoke legacy assignments.
And, for the record, there are over 50,000 of them, not less than 50.
Also, projections show that even if we reclaimed _every_ legacy assignment (many of which are still in use and even justified under current policy), it would only delay exhaustion six months to a year; it is felt that doing so is not generally worth the effort and would certainly cost an absurd amount in legal fees, and the litigation is likely to last beyond the exhaustion date anyways (with no solid guess as to who would win in the end).
So I doubt anything is going to happen once a few tens of
thousands of organizations have cast their IPv6 PI addresses in stone. Those prefixes will be around for a _long_ time.
The situation is different with v6 because all PI assignments are subject to a contract that allows ARIN to revoke them at any time with a policy change. If a viable alternative emerged, ARIN could stop making new PI assignments, deprecate the existing ones, and drop them after a few years' transition period.
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.