Subject: Re: [NRO comment on ULA 3] Needed changes

From: Dan Lanciani <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:21:10 -0400 (EDT)

|        It may be that this issue of assignments performed in perpetuity
|        vs fixed period renewable assignments should be a matter of
|        choice by the client as the time of assignment, and that charge
|        applicable to this service reflect the different cost structure
|        of secure maintenance of assignment records for a fixed period vs
|        costs for this record maintenance to be undertaken in perpetuity.

This would appear to be a serious change in the nature of the addresses
contemplated by the draft.  I think we need to discuss how to implement
the addresses as specified, not how to make them more like existing rental
space.  I also suggest that these types of concerns (which are inevitable
if the existing RIRs handle the allocations) are a strong reason to consider
using a separate allocation authority.

				Dan Lanciani
				ddl@danlan.*com

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 08:02:49 +1000

>using a separate allocation authority.

In reading this comment its not easy to understand what argument is being 
raised here in support of the assertion that  this represents a serious 
change in the nature of the addresses contemplated, and that, by 
implication, an in perpetuity registration service should be the only 
available mode of registration? It is evident that this comment is 
voicing  opposition to the concept of a choice of assignment models, the 
concept that a 'in perpetuity' registration be one of a number of 
alternative registration models, and the principle that the charges of 
registration under any given registration model should reflect the costs 
associated with the operation of the service, but there is no explanation 
in the note of the reasoning behind suchviews. A discussion on this topic 
is no doubt the reason why the NRO note was passed to the working group, 
and this is as good a starting point as any, but I hold the personal view 
that the discussion needs a more substantive foundation that trading 
unfounded assertions about the attributes of allocation entities.

regards,

   Geoff Huston

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:56:08 -0500

Thus spake "Dan Lanciani" <[email-masked]>
> using a separate allocation authority.

Indeed.  Perpetual assignments require a significantly different business
model than the RIRs currently operate under (annual rent).  Merely allowing
non-perpetual assignments violates the very heart of the proposal, and the
difference in fee structures presented may lead many short-sighted
registrants to pick annual rent, making local prefixes little different from
any other RIR assignments (since routability isn't guaranteed for either).
If non-perpetual assignments were allowed, we should mandate the minimum
duration of a registration to something that approximates our goals, such as
a decade.

Playing Devil's Advocate, perpetual assignments will also inevitably lead to
a situation where, after many years (think decades), the majority of
assignments will be stale because the registrant no longer exists but didn't
return the assignment.  While there's no concern about running out of
assignable prefixes, it's not sound engineering practice to maintain data
known to be useless, and it drives up the up-front cost that a registrar
must charge.  Any prospective registrar would be right to worry about this.

S

Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov