[apnic-talk] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANAto R
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 24-aug-04, at 4:48, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Iljitsch and all,
> ^^^^^
> No kidding...
Yep, no kidding...
>
>
> > None of this addresses the outstanding problems with Ipv6 or ipv6
> > allocation concerns and existing as well as discussed problems.
> > They are "at least" the following:
>
> I don't think I get what you're talking about.
I can see/read you don't. I am however surprised.
>
>
> > 1. ) Invalid or incorrect minimal allocation.
>
> What is invalid or incorrect here?
I said "minimal allocation" or didn't you read that carefully.
And this has been debated at least twice on this forum without
a reasonable or measured consensus on what a "minimal allocation"
should be...
>
>
> > 2.) Still existing cost increases for allocations.
>
> What cost?
Cost for allocation request.
>
>
> > 3.) Still existing security/privacy "holes" in ipv6
>
> What holes? There is no difference with IPv4.
What? You joking surely?
>
>
> > 4.) Routing notification for new allocation practice or method.
>
> What on Earth is a "routing notification"?
Notification mechanisms discussed in brief on this forum
last week. See archives.
> r
>
>
> > 5.) Routing table maintenance Best practices and/or policy,
>
> Well, there is some of this but since the RIRs seem to have trouble
> living up to their own policies this is problematic. (See
> http://www.bgpexpert.com/archive2003q4.php )
>
> > and enforcement of same.
>
> Yes, we don't do this in the internet. (And go fix the IPv4 table first
> if you feel so inclined.)
>
> > 6.) Dealing with "Dark" existing and/or future allocated addresses.
You must not have been paying close attention. Read last weeks
archives for this forum again.
>
>
>
> Now if we could have a mechanism to determine resolving DNS servers
> automatically in IPv6 and have visible IPv6 addresses for the root DNS
> servers we'd be well on our way. And of course we still need
> multihoming in IPv4 and the IETF has to quit rewriting the RFCs all the
> time.
Agreed, once the existing security holes are fixed for IPv6.
However I don't see that happening any time soon.
>
>
> > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> I know what I wrote, so P L E A S E don't repeat it in its entirety!!!
> I'm really getting sick and tired of people who are too lazy to quote
> in a decent manner.
Too late..
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827