Re: [MBONED] addrarch: IANA allocations and assignments

On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 01:54:03PM -0800, David Meyer wrote:
> > Either the IETF has an opinion on interdomain SSM vs. interdomain ASM,
> > or we don't.
> 
> 	Who is the IETF, exactly? And what authority do they (if
> 	you can locate "them") have over what is run on the
> 	Internet? Real questions that bear on your point.

In this particular case i guess "the IETF" is whoever has an impact
on determining IANA address allocation policy. Not sure if that's anyone
else but you, so i was just trying to use an as vague term, hoping at
least that anyone involved would also be in the IETF.

> > It would be fine though to hand out global scope IPv4 addresses to
> > applications that should be SSM if:
> >   a) There's charging for it (as Marshal explained)
> >      (which you have always refused as impractical though, arguing
> >       registries are too lame trying to charge money for multicast addresses)
> 	The IETF, as I understand it, isn't really in the
> 	business of endorsing business models, so this one is not
> 	in the IETF domain (again, AFAICT).

But IANA would also not hand out all unicast addresses.

Maybe i'll take it back: As soon as you hand out address space
to commercial entities like RIRs, they'll just handle it like any
other market good. Which isn't really what i'd like to see for IPv4
ASM adress space. On the other hand, it would still be much better than
simply opening up floodgates and later on wonderng why we not only have no
ASM addresses left, but so much ASM that's not working well and no SSM.

> >   b) If it is justified by the usage of certain non-SSM compliant
> >      softare (eg: PC_OS x.y).
> >   c) If it has to be renewed every year.
> 
> 	I understand your concern and reasoning, but you also
> 	realize that you just made a bunch of stuff up.

No, not entirely clear what you mean with "made up stuff" ?

> That's fine, but other people make up other stuff, which is not
> necessarily consisitent with a)-c)
> 
> > b) and c) together would ensure deployments using SSM application
> > will not abuse global scope ASM forever.
>   
> 	Not sure about that, and BTW, "forever" is a long time. 

2000 when we started SSM until today is half of eternity.

Cheers
    Toerless

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned