I agree that the regional-techs group cannot set policy on who is or isn't a provider or who does or doesn't get address space. However, I think they can talk about these issues and make recommendations on what should be done. In fact I think it is important that they do so. The sooner the better. It seems that the right way to make "policy" is to take recommendations, write an RFC and go through that entire process with the whole business finally endorsed by the IAB. Should try to get other groups to endorse the RFC as well (FARNET, the US Federal policy group the name of which I can never keep straight, the folks in Europe, ...). My guess is that if we can come up with a reasoanble policy that most folks in the Internet will follow it. -Jeff Ogden Merit/MichNet
E-Pals: I think we can safely cut this nonsense about policy being set by regional-techs, as the group has not attempted to do so. In fact, no group has authority to set Internet-wide policy. Certainly not the IAB or ISoc any more than regional-techs. Which was in fact the problem. As there is noone being able to set policy (or at least having enough guts to try), Scott W. had asked a group that is likely able to come up with a sound answer (regional techs, as their butts are on the line for at least the US part of the *operational* Internet infrastructure) for some guidance that he can take into consideration so he can achieve a better alignment between what he can do, and what the operational people want. We will not find answers for Scott for generations to come, but perhaps we can help him to make sound decisions for the next 6-12 months, after which time things will look quite different again anyway. If we can together cover 95% if the cases for now, that will be progress, the rest will have to be handled on a one-by-one basis, and fighting about "seeting policy about casting in stone who's a provider" is just academic at best. Hans-Werner PS: For that matter, at the regional-techs meeting early in the week, and totally unrelated to this discussion, the group had raised about not wanting to set policy. Though I personally believe it ain't that easy and many actions will have policy implications; if not today, then setting the stage for tomorrow's.
Just my .02 NLG: The RIPE NCC does have the policy not to get involved in deciding who is a provider and who not. If very small providers request blocks of address space they just get very small blocks on first time requests. There is no reason why very small cannot be less than 256Cs. Yes it gives problems with reverse lookup but we provide single network delegations if need be. When a provider comes for more address space we review his allocations and decide on the size of the next allocation based on their track record. This does not hurt CIDR too badly while conserving address space. Problem solved. Daniel
participants (3)
-
Daniel Karrenberg
-
hwb@upeksa.sdsc.edu
-
Jeff.Ogden@um.cc.umich.edu