Re: [v6ops] Reposting this draft

Actually, I don't agree. The IETF can certainly analyse
the options; the RIRs can (and do) act as a discussion forum,
which was what my text tried to recognise, but it is definitely
individual operators that set their own policies for end-user
prefixes.

Regards
   Brian

On 2010-09-11 12:41, YangGL wrote:
> I think this issue of address space should be discuss in IETF first. The
> guidelines from IETF will be a suggestion, but form RIRs, will be a policy.
> It is different.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Yang Guoliang
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 4:28 AM
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: v6ops@ietf.org; draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Reposting this draft
> 
> On 2010-09-11 05:59, Randy Bush wrote:
>>>     "The exact choice of how much address space to assign end sites is a
>>>      policy issue under the purview of the RIRs"
>>>
>>> this is not the case in v4 or v6.  the rirs may make recommendations.
>>> it is the operator's decision how to manage ip space assigned to
>>> customers.
>> not to just whine, but to try to suggest an approach.
>>
>>   The exact choice of how much address space to assign end sites is an
>>   issue for the operational community.
> 
> I agree, although it would be factually correct to add that suggested
> guidelines are discussed by the RIR community.
> 
>      Brian
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 