Subject: [rrg] RIRs' choice to offer PI space

From: "William Herrin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:40:48 -0600

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Noel Chiappa <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I think that horse escaped rather a long time ago, alas. If the RIR's were
> willing to think they were able to make routing engineering decisions, I
> doubt very much they'd be willing to reverse course because the IAB told them
> to.

Noel,

That's one way to spin it. As someone participating in ARIN PPML when
some of the decisions were made, I prefer to spin it another way:

The RIRs observed that routing as implemented in IPv6 was
architecturally identical to routing in IPv4.

The RIRs observed that routing in IPv4 legitimately required PI space
in a well understood set of circumstances.

The RIRs observed that end to end IPv6 deployment was all but
nonexistent with a fast approaching deadline imposed by the shrinking
IPv4 free pool.

A bunch of folks stood up and said, "The IETF did not adequately
address my renumbering problem. I have no intention of deploying IPv6
without my own addresses."

The RIR membership, composed primarily of network operators and
engineers with a remarkably firm grasp on routing *operations*,
perceived a critical failure in leadership by the IETF and reached
consensus that the RIRs should step up and fill the void.

You are entirely correct, however, that the RIR *members* are unlikely
to change course merely because the IAB wags its finger at them.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ [email-masked]  [email-masked]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:55:45 +0100

> consensus that the RIRs should step up and fill the void.

Well, if they decide that PI in IPv6 doesn't pose any problems, why  
are we still here?
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: Stephen Sprunk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:20:34 -0600

> Well, if they decide that PI in IPv6 doesn't pose any problems, why 

It wasn't so much that PI didn't pose any problems, because it obviously 
does, but that _not_ having PI causes other problems that were/are 
perceived to be more serious.  If nobody adopts IPv6 because it doesn't 
meet their needs, it doesn't matter how scalable routing it is.  Lacking 
any IETF action to meet those needs, the RIRs took the only action 
available to them: PI.

S

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 09:41:17 +1300

> any IETF action to meet those needs, the RIRs took the only action

Actually, the action open to them that they didn't take was to write
an I-D setting out in non-emotive language the needs they concluded
were unmet and the possible directions for a solution. Or to put
it another way, the amount of operator participation in the MULTI6
WG was probably less than ideal.

However, look at the resonance between current RRG discussion and
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03jul/slides/multi6-13.pdf

   Brian