Re: Request To Advance : "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

[Fred Templin <ftemplin at iprg.nokia.com>]

Bill,

Whether or not this would be new and untrodden, I believe
we need to step forward together into the unknown - under
the confidence that careful monitoring and any necessary
course-corrections will see us through the uncharted waters.

Regards,

Fred L. Templin
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com

Bill Manning wrote:

> % Alain,
> % 
> % The current document does not enforce a business model (earlier versions
> % did), but does set technical constraints. Personally I don't think it is
> % possible to 'Provide mechanisms that prevent hoarding', so the requirement
> % 'without any procedure for de-allocation' creates a problem once hoarding
> % has been detected. I do not object to the current document as this specific
> % issue will be resolved by an update once the system is in operation and
> % practical experience exposes that flaw. 
> 	its not that the document "enforces" a business model,
> 	it that it creates "property rights" e.g. owned address
> 	space.  this is -NEW- and is an area untrodden by the 
> 	IESG/IAB.
>
> % mechanism which solves them if used as directed. As much as some people want
> % to, it is not the IETF's job to legislate operational behavior. The language
> % in this document is appropriate and it should be published.
>
> 	Operational behaviour is one thing, creating legal assests
> 	is something else.  This is a -VERY- bad idea.
>
> --bill 
>
> % Tony
> % 
> % > -----Original Message-----
> % > From: ipv6-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alain
> % > Durand
> % > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:22 AM
> % > To: Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden
> % > Cc: The IESG; Margaret Wasserman; IPv6 Mailing List; Alain Durand; Thomas
> % > Narten
> % > Subject: Re: Request To Advance : "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"
> % > 
> % > Dears ADs,
> % > 
> % > I found it very unfortunate that the chair decided to request to
> % > advance this document
> % > without answering two major issues I raised during the last call:
> % > 
> % > - Permanent allocation is equivalent of selling address space, which is
> % > very different from
> % >    the notion of stewardship that are now in place for any IP address
> % > allocation today.
> % >    There are a number of legal questions not answered around this point.
> % >    More, this is imposing a business model to the entity that will be in
> % > charge of the allocations,
> % >    and I believe that the IETF should refrain from imposing business
> % > model.
> % > 
> % > - The document does not contain any wording recommending against the
> % > 'all zero' self allocation.
> % >    It merely say that:
> % >    "Locally assigned global IDs MUST be generated with a pseudo-random
> % >     algorithm consistent with [RANDOM].". However, it should be noted
> % > that  [RANDOM]
> % >     or RFC1750 does not contain any mandate, just provide ideas on how
> % > to do things.
> % >     An 'all zero' self allocation would create the prefix FD00::/48 and
> % > will be very tempting
> % >     to use by many.
> % >    This working group just spend more than a year to deprecate the site
> % > local
> % >    fec0::/10 prefixes, just to reinvent it here.
> % > 
> % > As the request to advance this document came from the Ipv6 wg chairs,
> % > representing the wg,
> % > it is my opinion that the IPv6 Working Groug has made an incorrect
> % > technical choice which
> % > places the quality and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s)
> % > in significant
> % > jeopardy.
> % > 
> % > As the request to advance this document has already been sent to you,
> % > ADs,
> % > this is my appeal to you to reject it and send it back to the working
> % > group.
> % > 
> % > 	- Alain.
> % > 
> % > 
> % > 
> % > 
> % > 
> % > On Feb 18, 2004, at 5:22 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> % > 
> % > > Margaret & Thomas,
> % > >      On behalf of the IPv6 working group, the chairs request the
> % > > advancement of:
> % > >
> % > > 	Title		: Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
> % > > 	Author(s)	: R. Hinden, B. Haberman
> % > > 	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt
> % > > 	Pages		: 16
> % > > 	Date		: 2004-2-13
> % > >
> % > > as a Proposed Standard.  The -02 version completed working group last
> % > > call on 02/02/2004.  This version addresses issues raised during the
> % > > last call period.
> % > >
> % > > Regards,
> % > > Brian & Bob
> % > > IPv6 WG co-chairs
> % > >
> % > >
> % > >
> % > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> % > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> % > > ipv6@ietf.org
> % > > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> % > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> % > 
> % > 
> % > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> % > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> % > ipv6@ietf.org
> % > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> % > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> % 
> % 
> % --------------------------------------------------------------------
> % IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> % ipv6@ietf.org
> % Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> % --------------------------------------------------------------------
> % 
>
>  


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