Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Lee Howard <Lee () asgard org>]

On 7/16/15, 11:24 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Joe Maimon"
<nanog-bounces () nanog org on behalf of jmaimon () ttec com> wrote:

> To clarify, my criticism of top down is specifically in response to the
> rationale presented that it is a valid objective to prevent, hinder and
> refuse to enable efforts that "compete" with ipv6 world-takeover
> resources.

I don¹t see anybody hindering any efforts; I don¹t see any efforts.

> I have no intention of using Class E. I have no intention of developing
> code that uses Classe E. I will note that the code involved that is
> publicly searchable appears to be simple and small, the task that is
> large is adoption spread.

So this argument is moot?

> But perhaps we can all agree that standards should be accurate and
> should not be used to advance uninvolved agenda. And class E
> experimental status is inaccurate. And keeping that status serves
> nobody, except those who believe it helps marshal efforts away from
> IPv4. And that is top down.

So, you would like to update RFC 1112, which defines and reserves Class E?
That¹s easy enough. If somebody had a use in mind for the space, anybody
can write such a draft assigning space, which is, I believe, how to
direct IANA to do something with it.

If you want to direct IANA to distribute Class E space among the RIRs,
there¹s more process, because you would also have to develop a global
policy (no problem, we get the NRO NC to write it and get consensus at
all the RIRs), and then each RIR would need to develop a policy under
which to allocate it. I¹d be surprised if all that could happen in
less than three years.

In any of these processes, nothing will move forward until there is
consensus, and I don¹t think there¹s consensus. If you think your
argument can be persuasive, let¹s write an internet-draft and get it
into the process.

Lee

> Joe