Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-02.txt
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-02.txt



While doing those edits, why not also remove the dictate to give permanent allocations from this document?
After all, this is also an operational/business discussion, not a technical one.

- Alain.


On Feb 5, 2004, at 10:07 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:

From what I have read so far, the monetary payment appears to be one of
the weakest point of the proposal. I suggest that the monetary
consideration in the draft be removed, and that the precise method used
to implement the registration be left to the registry. Specifically, I
suggest in section "
3.2.1 Centrally Assigned Global IDs" to replace the phrase:

- One time non-refundable allocation fee per allocation that is
affordable by a broad spectrum of end users when considered
globally.

By:

- Allocation on a permanent basis, without any need for renewal
and
without any procedure for de-allocation.

rder to keep overhead low.

By a more neutral:

The allocation service should include sufficient provisions to avoid
hoarding of numbers. This can be accomplished by various ways, e.g.,
requiring an exchange of documents, a verbal contact, or a proof that

the request is on behalf of a human rather than a machine. The
service
may charge a small fee in order to cover its costs, but the fee
should
be low enough to not create a barrier to anyone needing one. The
precise
mechanisms should be decided by the registration authority.

Doing these edits will clearly express our intent, without dictating how
the registration service chooses to operate. For all we know, we may
find a volunteer who runs the service for free.




--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------




Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.