[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG
sm+1net at elandsys.com
Thu Dec 26 05:17:04 UTC 2013
At 18:23 25-12-2013, Steve Crocker wrote:
>I think there's at least a bit of difference between "technical
>coordination" and "governance." Let me take three specific aspects
>of IPv6 allocation.
>1. I think there is quite broad agreement that allocations and use
>of IPv6 address should be unique, i.e. the same address should not
>be allocated to two or more parties.
>Building and operating the service to do this seems to me squarely
>an example of technical coordination. There's no real "policy"
>involved and there's no contention or value judgments involved.
>2. Determining the size of allocations and the criteria for
>qualification to get an allocation is another important part of the
>operation. This was developed within the IETF after much discussion
>This seems to me to fall into the "governance" area with strong
>inputs from the technical community.
The IETF advice about the size of allocation was that every site at
the edge of the network gets a size X allocation. As X was a very
large number of IPv6 addresses it was technically difficult to argue
that the number is not large enough. That advice was not
followed. Subsequently, the IETF advice was changed and the decision
about size X was described as a matter for the operational community
to decide. The criteria for qualification to get an allocation was
not developed within the IETF.
The definition of the word "governance" is the action or manner of
governing. Does the action of the IETF (see above paragraph) qualify
as governing? Some people may argue that it is governance and some
people may argue to the contrary. If I give you much more of X than
what could actually be used there isn't much of a problem to
solve. If there is a problem of scarcity governments might wish to
intervene. I am not aware of any entity which has argued that there
is a scarcity problem.
>3. Determining what happens when allocations become scarce is a
>potentially third part of the operation. This was obviously a big
>deal for IPv4 addresses -- and still is -- but doesn't have much
>relevance for IPv6.
>Dealing with shortages unquestionably involves value judgment and
>strong inputs from business interests.
>In the early days of the network, the focus was primarily on (1) and
>(2), and it felt mostly like "technical coordination" and not much
>like "governance." The shortage of IPv34 address brought a whole
>new set of players into the equation and moved us all squarely into
>Even though there's no shortage of IPv6 addresses, the removal of
>the shortage doesn't seem to have caused a return to status quo ante.
The term "technical coordination" creates a perception that the
coordination is reserved for technical people only. "Coordination"
can be described as making things run smoothly together.
(a) Is there a coordination problem in respect to getting IPv6 addresses?
(b) Is there a governance problem in respect to getting IPv6 addresses?
It depends on the nature of the problem; it can be either (a) or
(b). Could someone please explain what the problem is?
More information about the discuss