April 2006 - address-policy-wg

2006-01 New Policy Proposal - PI IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations
by RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator 20 Apr '06

20 Apr '06

PDP Number: 2006-01 Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy has been proposed and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 18 May 2006. After this date, we will prepare a draft RIPE Document. We will let you know when this is available. Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC

1 0

HD-ratio Proposal - Review Period Date Correction
by RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator 19 Apr '06

19 Apr '06

PDP Number: 2005-01 HD-ratio Proposal Dear Colleagues The Review Period for RIPE policy proposal 2005-01 has been extended until 17 May 2006. Please ignore the previous mail that gave a date of 10 May 2006. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-1.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC

1 0

Proposal Accepted - IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to RIRs
by RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator 19 Apr '06

19 Apr '06

RIPE PDP Number: 2005-09 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2005-09 has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-09.html Thank you for your input. Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC

1 0

2005-01 Review Period Extended Until 10 May 2006 (HD-ratio Proposal)
by RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator 19 Apr '06

19 Apr '06

PDP Number: 2005-01 HD-ratio Proposal Dear Colleagues The Review Period for the change to RIPE Document ripe-368 described in proposal 2005-01 has been extended until 10 May 2006 You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-1.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 18 Apr '06

18 Apr '06

Hi all, My first idea was submitting a PI IPv6 policy proposal next Monday to RIPE and the rest of the regions, trying to get a consensus for a "global" policy on this, but as this thread is being followed up in several mail exploders, to avoid a long cross-posting, I think it will be better to start some discussion already in a mailing list which is global, and actually I think we have the right one ... global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net So, if you aren't subscribed in the global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net, and you're interested in this thread, please subscribe at http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 If you're late because the Eastern, the archives are also available at http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/global-v6/ Regards, Jordi > De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> > Responder a: <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> > Fecha: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:39:07 +0200 > Para: "v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org" <v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org>, "ppml(a)arin.net" > <ppml(a)arin.net>, "shim6(a)psg.com" <shim6(a)psg.com> > Conversación: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN > Asunto: Re: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN > > Hi Owen, > > You said it: If somebody find the good solution, it will be attractive to > the people to go for it. Otherwise, you always have the chance to become an > LIR. My proposal actually is already considering this point and a way to > avoid a need for renumbering if that happens. > > I just want to make sure that we have a way-out if it becomes necessary, but > avoid a showstopper now. I think is it possible. > > I don't have a technical solution yet (and agree with your views on this in > the email below in general), but I'm confident we will have. If it will take > 4 years from now, or just 2, who knows, so my proposal is ensuring that we > have those 4 years+3 for allowing the people either to return the block, or > become an LIR and avoid renumbering an any changes in their network. > > By the way, it may happen, and I'm hoping so, that the technical solution > don't make necessary to return the PI block anymore, and in that case, we > will be even able to remove at that time the "temporarily" point in the > policy (if it becomes accepted). > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > >> De: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> >> Responder a: <owen(a)delong.com> >> Fecha: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 03:48:34 -0700 >> Para: <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es>, "v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org" >> <v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org>, >> "ppml(a)arin.net" <ppml(a)arin.net>, "shim6(a)psg.com" <shim6(a)psg.com> >> Asunto: Re: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN >> >> >> >> --On April 14, 2006 12:20:06 PM +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ >> <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> wrote: >> >> [snip] >>> However, I want to balance this with the medium-long term implications >>> created in the routing table and with the time needed to build and deploy >>> a better technical solution (or several) which is accepted by the >>> community. >>> >> I think we first need to define what we consider a solution... See below. >> >>> So my proposal basically is about having PI now everywhere (once ARIN >>> adopt it, is unfair not having it in other regions), but those PI >>> allocations for multihoming should be temporary and those address blocks >>> returned to the RIRs some time (lets say 3 years) after the new technical >>> solution is declared as a valid one. >>> >> I would not actually support this idea. The whole point of having PI >> space is to have the addresses for a long-term. Having a timeframe for >> return would simply restore the same barrier to entry that existed >> prior to passing the policy. >> >> Other RIRs are free to implement whatever v6 PI policy they feel is >> appropriate for their region. I would support a globally standardized >> v6 PI policy along the lines of ARIN 2005-1. >> >> However, I would like to argue that if the new technical solution will >> benefit from the return of this address space, it is most likely not >> truly a solution, but, instead, another clever hack piled on top of >> the existing set of hacks. >> >> I suppose if someone found the magic bullet to make geotopological >> addressing really work, that might qualify. However, I have very low >> expectations in that area. >> >> Absent that, any true solution will involve making the size of the routing >> table independent of the number of PI (or even PA) blocks issued by >> the RIRs or will make the size of the routing table practically >> irrelevant. >> >> I know this isn't the easy solution, but, we need to look long and >> hard at the way we do things. I think that solving these problems >> is going to require a significant paradigm shift. Assuming that we >> can use IP addresses for both end system identification and for >> routing topology indicators is how we created this problem. I don't >> see solving it without breaking that assumption, at least at the >> interdomain level. >> >> >>> At this way, on the long-run, we will not have routing table implications, >>> but we allow now the people that want to move ahead only if they have a >>> multihoming solution doing so. >>> >> If you think there is a possible solution (a real solution, not just >> a hack that postpones the inevitable at the expense of usability >> like CIDR did), then I'd like to hear what you are thinking. >> >>> This 3-years time for getting a multihoming network back to the new >>> technical solution (once adopted) is enough time, I think (it could be >>> changed to 5 years if needed, or whatever), so nobody today see the >>> temporarily of the proposal as a showstopper to go for it now. >>> >> I think you underestimate the momentum and requirements of the modern >> enterprise if you believe that to be true. Any capability available >> in v4 that is not available on at least equal or better terms in v6 >> is a deterrent to v6 deployment. >> >> The ability to get permanent addresses which do not have to be returned >> when you switch providers or renumbered on a schedule determined by >> some external organization is a major example of such a capability. >> >> Owen >> >> >> -- >> If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. > > > > > ********************************************** > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit > Slides available at: > http://www.ipv6-es.com > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the > individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that > any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, including attached files, is prohibited. > > > > > > > ********************************************** > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit > Slides available at: > http://www.ipv6-es.com > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the > individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that > any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, including attached files, is prohibited. > > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] Global IPv6 PI policy proposal
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 18 Apr '06

18 Apr '06

Hi Michael, I know is difficult to achieve, but I think is worth to try and at least try to make it as much close as possible if no way to make a single one. I'm in favor of the RIRs process but also in favor of trying to achieve global consensus, avoiding regional shopping, etc. In fact not trying to make it as much global and fair to all as possible, we could say otherwise that there is no reason to set policy by regions, but by country, or estate, etc., which I'm sure you don't agree. We need to understand the very high importance of the PI implications on a global level, which make a good candidate for a global policy, in my opinion. Regards, Jordi > De: <Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com> > Responder a: <Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com> > Fecha: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:09:26 +0100 > Para: <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> > CC: "address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net>, > "global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net" <global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net> > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] Global IPv6 PI policy proposal > >> Please, use global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net for inputs to this draft policy >> proposal, in order to avoid threads being split across multiple mail >> exploders in different regions. > > I strongly doubt that you will get anywhere with a global > policy proposal. There is a reason that RIRs set their > policies independently. The IPv6 policy was a special case > due to the need to create a new policy for a new type of > address. But from now on, the 5 RIRs are likely to continue > making local changes to policies and it is extremenly unlikely > for any global policy to survive the 5 RIRs intact. > > In fact, the concept of a global policy is in direct > contradiction with the bottom-up nature of the RIRs. > > --Michael Dillon > > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

1 0

IPv6 workshop in Istanbul
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 18 Apr '06

18 Apr '06

Hi all, Sponsored by ISOC, there will be an IPv6 workshop next Friday 28th afternoon in Istanbul, right after the RIPE lunch. The workshop is intended for those that don't have IPv6 knowledge. More information and registration: http://www.ipv6tf.org/ipv6_istanbul_isoc.php Please, forward this to your colleagues and other people that may be interested in participating. Thanks ! Regards, Jordi ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

1 0

RE: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
by Bound, Jim 17 Apr '06

17 Apr '06

The IETF has NOTHING to say anymore than any other body about any RIR policy. I want it to remain that way. IETF job is a standards body not a deployment body. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-shim6(a)psg.com [mailto:owner-shim6@psg.com] On > Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum > Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 3:18 AM > To: Patrick W. Gilmore > Cc: shim6-wg; ppml(a)arin.net; global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net; IETF > Discussion; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net; v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [narten(a)us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 > advances in ARIN] > > On 16-apr-2006, at 6:09, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > > Wow, Iljitsch, I have never lost so much respect so quickly for > > someone who was not flaming a specific person or using profanity. > > Congratulations. > > Well, that's too bad. But several years of trying to get a > scalable multihoming off the ground (flying to different > meetings on my own > dime) where first my ideas about PI aggregation are rejected > within the IETF mostly without due consideration because it > involves the taboo word "geography" only to see the next best > thing being rejected by people who, as far as I can tell, > lack a view of the big picture, is enough to make me lose my > cool. Just a little. > > > Back on topic, it is not just those 60 people - the "playground" > > appears to overwhelmingly agree with their position. I know I do. > > Don't you think it's strange that the views within ARIN are > so radically different than those within the IETF? Sure, > inside the IETF there are also people who think PI in IPv6 > won't be a problem, but it's not the majority (as far as I > can tell) and certainly not anything close to 90%. Now the > IETF process isn't perfect, as many things depend on whether > people feel like actually doing something. > But many of the best and the brightest in the IETF have been > around for some time in multi6 and really looked at the > problem. Many, if not most, of them concluded that we need > something better than IPv4 practices to make IPv6 last as > long as we need it to last. Do you think all of them were wrong? > > > I am sorry your technical arguments have not persuaded us > in the past. > > But I would urge you to stick to those, > > Stay tuned. > >

3 2

RE: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
by Bound, Jim 17 Apr '06

17 Apr '06

I agree. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-shim6(a)psg.com [mailto:owner-shim6@psg.com] On > Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore > Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 12:10 AM > To: Iljitsch van Beijnum > Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore; shim6-wg; ppml(a)arin.net; > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net; IETF Discussion; > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net; v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [narten(a)us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 > advances in ARIN] > > On Apr 14, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > > On 14-apr-2006, at 16:57, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > > >> 60 voted in favor of moving forward with PI. 6 voted against. > > > > Wow, 10 to 1. Amazing. > > > > Even more amazing: 60 people who represent nobody but their own > > paycheck get to blow up the internet. > > > > Where is ICANN when you need it? This little experiment in > playground > > democracy has to end before people get hurt. > > Wow, Iljitsch, I have never lost so much respect so quickly for > someone who was not flaming a specific person or using profanity. > Congratulations. > > > Back on topic, it is not just those 60 people - the "playground" > appears to overwhelmingly agree with their position. I know I do. > > I am sorry your technical arguments have not persuaded us in > the past. But I would urge you to stick to those, or at > least consider why we remain unconvinced, rather than devolve > into .. whatever that post was supposed to be. > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > >

1 0

Re: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 16 Apr '06

16 Apr '06

On 14-apr-2006, at 16:57, Scott Leibrand wrote: > 60 voted in favor of moving forward with PI. 6 voted against. Wow, 10 to 1. Amazing. Even more amazing: 60 people who represent nobody but their own paycheck get to blow up the internet. Where is ICANN when you need it? This little experiment in playground democracy has to end before people get hurt.

6 7