IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers

Tim Chown tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Thu Aug 22 08:49:15 CEST 2013

On 22 Aug 2013, at 07:11, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:

> On Aug 21, 2013, at 1:06 AM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
>>>>> The IETF formally left the address space distribution regime when they
>>>>> delegated responsibility to IANA
>>> Wait. What?
>> IETF gave responsibility for address distribution to IANA.  It's called
>> "delegation", which goes along with "not meddling with it anymore".
>> IANA, in turn, gave it to the RIRs, and policy is now made by the RIR
>> constituencies, not by IETF or IANA.
>> But you know all that already, so what about the sentence above (except
>> my blunder) is upsetting you?
> Not upset. Confused by your (since fixed) reference to ARIN.
> However, for the record, the IETF never had responsibility for address distribution. They maintain the same role they always had, namely "the non-policy aspects of Internet addressing such as the architectural definition of IP address and AS number spaces and specification of associated technical goals and constraints in their application, assignment of specialized address blocks, and experimental technical assignments" (wording from 2050bis). 

> While it is true that most allocation policy is now defined in a bottom-up fashion, this doesn't mean the IANA can't "meddle". In theory, at least, the IANA is still at the root of the address allocation/policy hierarchy (hence some of the more fun 'discussions' about the root of the RPKI).
> Pedantically yours,
> -drc

Technically, I think the IETF, through the IPng WG, managed 3ffe::/16 in the old 6bone days, allocating a few hundred prefixes to test sites.  But 3ffe::/16 was chosen by IANA for the "experiment", iirc.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list