On 1/27/14, 12:20 , Leo Vegoda wrote:
David Conrad wrote: On Jan 26, 2014, at 8:26 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai dot com> wrote:That and isn't the IETF the right venue to carve out a specific froma /8? This is in effect global policy, isn't it? I suppose APNIC could throw it back to IANA (maybe? not sure how an RIR can throw a /24 back to IANA -- perhaps that needs a global policy too?)I don't want to comment on which venue is appropriate. However, I can report that we have some experience with this kind of thing based on ARIN-prop-154, which ended up with RFC 6598. In that case, ARIN made a /10 available and we registered it in the IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry when the draft was approved. The implementation of things like this is generally not a problem. Regards, Leo Vegoda ICANN, IANA
Hello, from cold as {expletive deleted} Minnesota, were the low last night was -17F (-27C) air temperature, with the wind chill near the crossover point for Fahrenheit and Celsius at about -40.
----When I first saw this policy last weekend, I was convinced it belonged in the Special-Purpose Address Registry and MUST go through the IETF. But, I decided not to comment until I had time to actually read the proposal.
So, I've read the proposal, and I have to say I no longer think it belongs in Special-Purpose Address Registry, at least not yet. The proposal is for a non-exclusively registered block. 1.2.3.0/24 will simply be registered to multiple entities. And, any unregistered use would be technically invalid.
So, I have a few thoughts;First, I want to confirm the issuance of a ROA for any and all use of the 1.2.3.0/24 block is mandatory by the policy as proposed?
I think the policy should also require the full list of registered authorized users be published along with the originating ASNs to be used. My recommendation is that the APNIC database points to a web page were all registered authorized users and their associated originating ASNs are published.
I'd like to suggest this allocation be made with an experimental status for now, without any time limit, but with predetermined review in two years. I'm not sure anyone is really sure this will be good practice or not. But, by designating this experimental, there is no connotation that APNIC or anyone else is recommending this practice, at least at this time. Further, it makes clear the APNIC community retains the option to pull this back if it proves to be a stupendously bad idea.
so, in two years the community reviews the idea and may; continue the experiment, make it production under the proposed multiple registration process, propose a draft to the IETF and put it in the Special-Purpose Address Registry, or pull the plug on the idea and officially notify all registered users.
If the publication of the authorized users were clarified and its given an experimental status I would, fully support this proposal.
Thanks -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn dot edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================