Hi Randy.
my memory of the discussion at the meeting was
o there is precedent for apnic doing this
What precendent, other than the IPv6 prefix? I just reviewed the
transcript of meeting and the IPv6 prefix was the only precedent that
was mentioned. Given that IMO that IPv6 documentation reservation
should not have been made by APNIC, I object to it being used to
justify the current effort.
(BTW, I couldn't find the history of that effort on the APNIC site, as
it predates the policy proposal archive.)
This sort of global reservation is best made by IANA (at the request
of someone). We have lots of examples/precedent for that. The IETF is
the logical place for the request to come from.
o for it to have global/formal effect, there probably should be an rfc
directing the iana
If APNIC makes the reservation, IANA can only record what APNIC has
done after the fact. The normal process is to make a
request/recommendation to IANA as to which numbers it should
reserve. The current proposal on the IETF side suggests that IANA
reserve numbers from an unused/reserved portion of the number
space. APNIC can only reserve from the block that has been assigned to
it.
o but an apnic allocation would do in the long meantime
I disagree about the "long" part. The IETF can do this quickly too.
Also, it wouldn't be a "meantime". Once APNIC makes the reservation,
it cannot be revoked, since the vendor might have already put bit into
documentation.
would you be willing to work the rfc part?
I am watching, but this is already being done.
See:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/threads.html#03102
and
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huston-as-documentation-reservation-00
Thomas
