Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14.txt> (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space) to BCP

Martin Millnert <martin@millnert.se> Thu, 16 February 2012 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <martin@millnert.se>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4070B21F87E4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:16:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.174
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KOZ7rdRzecdz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:16:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ncis.csbnet.se (ncis.csbnet.se [95.80.1.101]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4770D21F8636 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:16:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ncis.csbnet.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id CABEC790; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:14:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ncis.csbnet.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ncis.csbnet.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SxIakgW+7fHo; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:14:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.120.227] (h-189-4.a189.priv.bahnhof.se [85.24.189.4]) by ncis.csbnet.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B9AA2B0; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:14:28 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <1329412602.5382.83.camel@davinci.millnert.se>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-14.txt> (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space) to BCP
From: Martin Millnert <martin@millnert.se>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:16:42 +0100
In-Reply-To: <4F3D359C.7020907@inex.ie>
References: <CB5FF399.1B4E7%jeff.finkelstein@cox.com> <4F3AAA08.2040204@qualcomm.com> <01OBZ9WQSHWY00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> <4F3ABF6C.1030803@qualcomm.com> <m2d39hi267.wl%randy@psg.com> <4F3B09C3.1090005@qualcomm.com> <1329388980.5382.44.camel@davinci.millnert.se> <CAC1-dtnJ77PgMmfeYJHZfO13C10ckznuseVyEECAb8dUPoj1ew@mail.gmail.com> <1329410134.5382.72.camel@davinci.millnert.se> <4F3D359C.7020907@inex.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-FIoHvhqYYVHyjuGalQH0"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3-3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:16:53 -0000

Hi Nick,

On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 16:58 +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> There is no particular reason to allocate this space on a regional
> basis, unless for some reason you believe that you can force carriers
> only to use this shared address space for specific purposes - and I
> cannot see why you think that this is remotely feasible for shared
> address space.  Private address space, perhaps.  But certainly not
> shared address space. 

I'm not sure why a contract with a RIR would be less enforceable than
this I-D. On the contrary, I think the chances of correct use are higher
in that scenario than the other.

It's just bits, you know. IPv4-code on the general internet certainly
won't care about these bits. Routing policy however, may.  I do not see
how having the BCP makes any difference, if the allocation comes from
the RIR in either case, provided there is at least one RIR which can
assign address space to an entity who will share it.

Best,
Martin