Re: [GLOBAL-V6] How to reduce the junk applications?

[Bob Hinden <hinden@iprg.nokia.com>]

Geza,

>the question here is the following:
>
>How to avoid that a boom of (virtual) LIRs destroys the whole Internet 
>Registry
>structure?

This is a good question.  Back in 1997-8 (or so) when I was trying to write 
up a proposed allocation procedures for IPv6 I tried to limit the 
allocation of top level prefixes to what I called "transit providers".  The 
goal was to keep the number of IPv6 prefixes in the routing system 
relatively small.  After some attempt to define what that was (this like 
some other things, we all know it when we see it, but it is hard to define 
on paper) feedback from the registry community was that this was not 
possible.  The RIR's can not do this type of determination.

I suspect the best can be done beyond requiring membership in an RIR, that 
is equitable, is to define technical requirements that demonstrate the 
requester is capable of being an LIR (and getting a IPv6 prefix from the 
RIR).  For example, I think it technically defensible that to have a LIR 
prefix, one needs to be capable of operating BGP peering sessions with 
other LIRs.  The requester could be required to demonstrate this 
competence.  There might be other similar technical requirements.

Unfortunately, thought it is unlikely, there isn't anything to stop many 
organizations from doing this.  I don't think there is any solution to 
this.  So it might not be better than just requiring membership in the RIR.

>My proposal is simple: only such a LIR should get IPv6 addresses in 2002 and
>2003 that already had experiences in IPv4 registration for at least two years.

This tends to discriminate against new players or anyone who only wants to 
provide IPv6 only service.

Bob



-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net