Skeeve, Sorry about the cross-posting but I will only do this once. (Maybe it's time for a worldnog list.) On 2010-02-27 15:59, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
As usual Mark, your contributions are unbiased and well thought out.
...
-----Original Message----- From: Mark Smith [mailto:nanog(a)85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org] Sent: Saturday, 27 February 2010 1:24 PM To: Skeeve Stevens
...
Because they're bellheads.
If that's the statement you're reacting to, I think this comment is in fact objective and well thought out, even if expressed flippantly. It is *exactly* because ITU policy is derived from the obsolete model of national monopolists and geographically based network topology that this particular idea has been floating around inside the ITU since about 2005 to my personal knowledge, and probably longer. I spent quite some time while IETF Chair trying to explain to senior people at ITU why it was a pointless and unnecessary mechanism, but without success.
From what I have seen during the recent survey of ISPs, there is manifestly no need for any major change in IPv6 allocation mechanisms. The RIRs are clearly doing an excellent job of allocating adequate prefixes to those who need them.
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-carpenter-v6ops-isp-scenarios Brian