I just have one question? Why are we discussing IP allocations and IANA in an email thread about EoL Juniper gear?
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 1:26 PM Doug Barton <do...@dougbarton.us> wrote: > I don't want to glorify the idea of converting multicast space by > commenting on it, however you're wrong in several particulars about the > relationships around the IANA. > > Most notably here is the issue that in relationship to what IP addresses > can be handed out to who, and for what purpose, IANA is at the service > of the IETF. At the end of the day the IP address registries are not > that different from any of the other registries that IANA maintains on > their behalf. > > hope this helps, > > Doug (Former IANA GM) > > > On 6/14/22 8:54 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote: > > > > Just to put a little more flesh on that bone (having spent about a > > decade going to ICANN conferences): > > > > Although organized under ICANN, address allocation would generally be > > the role of IANA which would assign address blocks to RIRs for > > distribution. > > > > It's a useful distinction because IANA and the RIRs act fairly > > independently from the umbrella ICANN org unless there's some very > > specific reason for, e.g., the ICANN board to interfere like some > > notion that the allocation of these addresses would (literally) > > threaten the stability and security of the internet, or similar. > > > > Offhand (and following comments by people of competent jurisdiction) I > > can't see why IANA or the RIRs would resist this idea in > > principle. It's just more stock in trade for them, particularly the > > RIRs. > > > > Other than they (IANA, RIRs) wouldn't do this unless the IETF issued a > > formal redeclaration of the use of these addresses. > > > > Anyhow, that's roughly how the governance works in practice and has > > for over 20 years. > > > > So, I think the first major move would have to be the IETF issuing one > > or more RFCs redefining the use of these addresses which would then > > put them into the jurisdiction of IANA who could then issue them > > (probably piecewise) to the RIRs. > > > > On June 14, 2022 at 13:21 g...@toad.com (John Gilmore) wrote: > > > Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Then it was "what can we do with what we can afford" now it's > more > > > > > like "What can we do with what we have (or can actually get)"? > > > > > > > > Like, working on better software... > > > > > > Like, deploying the other 300 million IPv4 addresses that are > currently > > > lying around unused. They remain formally unused due to three > > > interlocking supply chain problems: at IETF, ICANN, and vendors. > IETF's > > > is caused by a "we must force everyone to abandon trailing edge > > > technology" attitude. ICANN's is because nobody is sure how to > allocate > > > ~$15B worth of end-user value into a calcified IP address market > > > dominated by government-created regional monopolies doing allocation > by > > > fiat. > > > > > > Vendors have leapfrogged the IETF and ICANN processes, and most have > > > deployed the key one-line software patches needed to fully enable > these > > > addresses in OS's and routers. Microsoft is the only major vendor > > > seemingly committed to never doing so. Our project continues to > track > > > progress in this area, and test and document compatability. > > > > > > John > > > IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project > > >
