June 2007 - address-policy-wg

ULA-C draft version 2 available (I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt)
by Jeroen Massar 18 Jun '07

18 Jun '07

Reply-To set to ipv6(a)ietf.org, use it as there is where the discussion should be. This mail is mostly so that folks can't claim that they "didn't know". IETF is, just like the RIR communities open and individual participation. Thus if you have something on your mind, write down the arguments and send them in. Note on the IETF lists: subscription is helpful, otherwise you might not get the responses (unless you read the public archive). List Admins will, as soon as possible approve mails that get into the queue though, but with todays amount of spam coming in that might not be immediate. The document is at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt Subscription information + archive etc for ipv6(a)ietf.org can be found at: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 Greets, Jeroen -------- Original Message -------- A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF. Title : Centrally Assigned Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses Author(s) : R. Hinden, B. Haberman Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2007-6-18 This document defines Centrally allocated IPv6 Unique Local addresses. These addresses are globally unique and are intended for local communications, usually inside of a site. They are not expected to be routable on the global Internet. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request(a)ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv(a)ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft.

1 0

Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
by Jeroen Massar 18 Jun '07

18 Jun '07

[cc'ing RIPE address policy + ARIN PPML where the discussion on this happened, I have not seen any 'operators' who have said the below, if there are they are there and can thus raise their voices because they will see this message; removed the silly spam scoring subject...] JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they could > use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal > infrastructure's. I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does not work that way. Real network operators, especially involved in the RIPE or other RIR's, have more than enough address space from their PA allocations that they can easily receive and they very well know how to use a /48 from that for internal infrastructure as everybody does this. The IPv6 PA policies even describe that a /48 can be used per POP of the owner of the PA block. Also in the ARIN region any organization can get a /48 PI block for about $100/year, as such these organizations won't be needing this address space either as they can easily take a /64 out of that for those needs. Firewalling is the key here. > I think the policy proposal that I sent to several regions includes text and > links to other documents that can clarify this perspective. > > For example in RIPE NCC: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html That is your proposal indeed. No "Operator" has stood behind this and various people from various organizations have clearly asked you and the RIPE NCC to *freeze* this proposal till at least the IETF has worked out. Anybody needing a "globally unique" block can get either PA or PI space. ULA-C as such is useless. Greets, Jeroen

10 10

RE: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
by Azinger, Marla 18 Jun '07

18 Jun '07

Jordi- We are saying the same thing. Just how you get there is different. It is true, we could either modify or eliminate the current ARIN policy to work in unison with what might be a finsished RFC on ULA-C. I just believe that sometimes it is easier to start with a fresh policy. In this case, I think it would be less confusing to expire the current policy and replace it with a new one that is more fitting as opposed to trying to modify the current one. A modification could quickly confuse anyone who has not been following all of the ULA emails and conversations. I suppose we can figure this out when we get to that bridge. Cheers! Marla Azinger Frontier Communications ARIN AC -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces(a)arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces@arin.net]On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:03 AM To: ARIN People Posting Mailing List Cc: ipv6(a)ietf.org; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft Hi Marla, In fact, when I started to work on this, it was because I realized about the possibility to use ULA-C as the space for the microallocations and talking with different folks they said that it will be possible with ULA-C, but not ULA. I also talked with people from the AC and they considered the point (I was told) to use ULA-C for the microallocations when ULA-C is available. So my view is that probably the microallocations policy should not expire, but instead, be modified to make usage of the ULA-C space instead of global unicast. Regards, Jordi > De: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger(a)frontiercorp.com> > Responder a: <marla.azinger(a)frontiercorp.com> > Fecha: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:31:29 -0400 > Para: Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org>, <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> > CC: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml(a)arin.net>, <ipv6(a)ietf.org>, > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Conversación: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft > Asunto: RE: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft > > I think a point here that needs to be looked at is this: > > If ULA-C is addressed by IETF and then in turn we end up with RIR's > responsible for handing out ULA-C blocks, then those existing policy's such as > ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal Infastructure should be > expired and no longer an active policy. > > And there are different flavors to the debate of why ULA-C would be better > than such policy as ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal > Infastructure. Ie Standardization, conservation ect... > > Cheers! > Marla Azinger > Frontier Communications > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces(a)arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces@arin.net]On Behalf Of > Jeroen Massar > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:00 AM > To: jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es > Cc: ARIN People Posting Mailing List; ipv6(a)ietf.org; > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft > > > [cc'ing RIPE address policy + ARIN PPML where the discussion on this > happened, I have not seen any 'operators' who have said the below, if > there are they are there and can thus raise their voices because they > will see this message; removed the silly spam scoring subject...] > > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they could >> use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal >> infrastructure's. > > I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator > who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their > argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does > not work that way. > > Real network operators, especially involved in the RIPE or other RIR's, > have more than enough address space from their PA allocations that they > can easily receive and they very well know how to use a /48 from that > for internal infrastructure as everybody does this. The IPv6 PA policies > even describe that a /48 can be used per POP of the owner of the PA block. > > Also in the ARIN region any organization can get a /48 PI block for > about $100/year, as such these organizations won't be needing this > address space either as they can easily take a /64 out of that for those > needs. Firewalling is the key here. > > >> I think the policy proposal that I sent to several regions includes text and >> links to other documents that can clarify this perspective. >> >> For example in RIPE NCC: >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html > > That is your proposal indeed. No "Operator" has stood behind this and > various people from various organizations have clearly asked you and the > RIPE NCC to *freeze* this proposal till at least the IETF has worked out. > > Anybody needing a "globally unique" block can get either PA or PI space. > ULA-C as such is useless. > > Greets, > Jeroen > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org 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. _______________________________________________ This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML(a)arin.net). Manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

4 3

help
by Rob Bentley 16 Jun '07

16 Jun '07

-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net Sent: 16 June 2007 11:00 To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: address-policy-wg digest, Vol 1 #637 - 4 msgs Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft (Thomas Narten) 2. Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) 3. Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) 4. Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft (Randy Bush) --__--__-- Message: 1 To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org> cc: jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es, ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml(a)arin.net>, ipv6(a)ietf.org, "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:19:15 -0400 From: Thomas Narten <narten(a)us.ibm.com> Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org> writes: > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they cou= > ld > > use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal > > infrastructure's. > I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator > who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their > argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does > not work that way. Maybe the assertion came from those who supported ARIN Policy Proposal 2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure (http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2006_2.html), where using a /48 out of their aggregate did not solve the technical problem at hand. At that time, the question was raised whether ULA-P solved the problem adequately. The answer I heard was a very clear "no". And ULA-C (if had existed then) would have. Thomas --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:14:43 +0000 From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> To: <ipv6(a)ietf.org> CC: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml(a)arin.net>, "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Reply-To: jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft If you doubt about folks stating anything, then you should read *before* minutes of meetings. I'm now off-line in a plane, so can't point you to a specific URL, but this has been said at least in one ARIN meeting. It has been clear across all this discussion in several exploders, that there are both opinions, people that want ULA-C and people that don't. What you need to be smart here is to realize that those than don't want ULA-C have no any objective reason to oppose to it, because implementing ULA-C has no negative impact in others. While opposing to it has negative impact to all: Folks will use global space (PA or PI) for doing the function of ULA-C an this is a waste, yes a small waste but a waste. It seems to me irresponsible and unbalanced to do or try things like changing the HD-ratio or the default assignment size to end-sites because it is a waste, and then oppose to those that want to have ULA-C, not impacting in others and avoiding one further small saving in global unicast space. I'm not trying to convince anyone about supporting ULA-C, because it seems an impossible mission at least for a few, but at least, don't object to it if having it doesn't force you in any further implications, which is the case. Regards, Jordi > De: Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org> > Organizaci=F3n: Unfix > Responder a: <ipv6-bounces(a)ietf.org> > Fecha: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:00:11 +0100 > Para: <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> > CC: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml(a)arin.net>, <ipv6(a)ietf.org>, > "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Asunto: Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft >=20 > [cc'ing RIPE address policy + ARIN PPML where the discussion on this > happened, I have not seen any 'operators' who have said the below, if > there are they are there and can thus raise their voices because they > will see this message; removed the silly spam scoring subject...] >=20 > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they could >> use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal >> infrastructure's. >=20 > I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator > who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their > argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does > not work that way. >=20 > Real network operators, especially involved in the RIPE or other RIR's, > have more than enough address space from their PA allocations that they > can easily receive and they very well know how to use a /48 from that > for internal infrastructure as everybody does this. The IPv6 PA policies > even describe that a /48 can be used per POP of the owner of the PA block. >=20 > Also in the ARIN region any organization can get a /48 PI block for > about $100/year, as such these organizations won't be needing this > address space either as they can easily take a /64 out of that for those > needs. Firewalling is the key here. >=20 >=20 >> I think the policy proposal that I sent to several regions includes text and >> links to other documents that can clarify this perspective. >>=20 >> For example in RIPE NCC: >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html >=20 > That is your proposal indeed. No "Operator" has stood behind this and > various people from various organizations have clearly asked you and the > RIPE NCC to *freeze* this proposal till at least the IETF has worked out. >=20 > Anybody needing a "globally unique" block can get either PA or PI space. > ULA-C as such is useless. >=20 > Greets, > Jeroen >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6(a)ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org 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. --__--__-- Message: 3 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:03:25 +0000 From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> To: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml(a)arin.net> CC: <ipv6(a)ietf.org>, <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Reply-To: jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft Hi Marla, In fact, when I started to work on this, it was because I realized about the possibility to use ULA-C as the space for the microallocations and talking with different folks they said that it will be possible with ULA-C, but not ULA. I also talked with people from the AC and they considered the point (I was told) to use ULA-C for the microallocations when ULA-C is available. So my view is that probably the microallocations policy should not expire, but instead, be modified to make usage of the ULA-C space instead of global unicast. Regards, Jordi > De: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger(a)frontiercorp.com> > Responder a: <marla.azinger(a)frontiercorp.com> > Fecha: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:31:29 -0400 > Para: Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org>, <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> > CC: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml(a)arin.net>, <ipv6(a)ietf.org>, > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Conversaci=F3n: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft > Asunto: RE: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft >=20 > I think a point here that needs to be looked at is this: >=20 > If ULA-C is addressed by IETF and then in turn we end up with RIR's > responsible for handing out ULA-C blocks, then those existing policy's such as > ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal Infastructure should be > expired and no longer an active policy. >=20 > And there are different flavors to the debate of why ULA-C would be better > than such policy as ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal > Infastructure. Ie Standardization, conservation ect... >=20 > Cheers! > Marla Azinger > Frontier Communications >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces(a)arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces@arin.net]On Behalf Of > Jeroen Massar > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:00 AM > To: jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es > Cc: ARIN People Posting Mailing List; ipv6(a)ietf.org; > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft >=20 >=20 > [cc'ing RIPE address policy + ARIN PPML where the discussion on this > happened, I have not seen any 'operators' who have said the below, if > there are they are there and can thus raise their voices because they > will see this message; removed the silly spam scoring subject...] >=20 > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they could >> use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal >> infrastructure's. >=20 > I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator > who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their > argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does > not work that way. >=20 > Real network operators, especially involved in the RIPE or other RIR's, > have more than enough address space from their PA allocations that they > can easily receive and they very well know how to use a /48 from that > for internal infrastructure as everybody does this. The IPv6 PA policies > even describe that a /48 can be used per POP of the owner of the PA block. >=20 > Also in the ARIN region any organization can get a /48 PI block for > about $100/year, as such these organizations won't be needing this > address space either as they can easily take a /64 out of that for those > needs. Firewalling is the key here. >=20 >=20 >> I think the policy proposal that I sent to several regions includes text and >> links to other documents that can clarify this perspective. >>=20 >> For example in RIPE NCC: >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html >=20 > That is your proposal indeed. No "Operator" has stood behind this and > various people from various organizations have clearly asked you and the > RIPE NCC to *freeze* this proposal till at least the IETF has worked out. >=20 > Anybody needing a "globally unique" block can get either PA or PI space. > ULA-C as such is useless. >=20 > Greets, > Jeroen >=20 ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org 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. --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:58:12 -1000 From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> To: Mark Smith <ipng(a)69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> CC: ipv6(a)ietf.org, ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml(a)arin.net>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft > If (non-globally routed) PI is the answer to the ULA-C question, is > there going to be enough (non-globally routed) PI so that I can get a > (non-globally routed) PI allocation for my home, at a small charge for > the guaranteed uniqueness e.g. US$10 per annum ? How about my Personal > Area Network that interconnects my mobile phone, portable music player > and pedometer in my shoes. Will there be enough (non-globally routed) > PI that everybody on the planet who might end up having that sort of > PAN can get a (non-globally routed) PI address allocation, should they > want one ? How about if they want separate allocations for both their > PAN and their home network. these are rir policy and price issues. they are not technical issues. except for routability, which, as smb says, don't think you ain't gonna want to connect it some day; you will. randy End of address-policy-wg Digest

1 0

RE: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
by Azinger, Marla 15 Jun '07

15 Jun '07

I think a point here that needs to be looked at is this: If ULA-C is addressed by IETF and then in turn we end up with RIR's responsible for handing out ULA-C blocks, then those existing policy's such as ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal Infastructure should be expired and no longer an active policy. And there are different flavors to the debate of why ULA-C would be better than such policy as ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal Infastructure. Ie Standardization, conservation ect... Cheers! Marla Azinger Frontier Communications -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces(a)arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces@arin.net]On Behalf Of Jeroen Massar Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:00 AM To: jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es Cc: ARIN People Posting Mailing List; ipv6(a)ietf.org; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft [cc'ing RIPE address policy + ARIN PPML where the discussion on this happened, I have not seen any 'operators' who have said the below, if there are they are there and can thus raise their voices because they will see this message; removed the silly spam scoring subject...] JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they could > use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal > infrastructure's. I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does not work that way. Real network operators, especially involved in the RIPE or other RIR's, have more than enough address space from their PA allocations that they can easily receive and they very well know how to use a /48 from that for internal infrastructure as everybody does this. The IPv6 PA policies even describe that a /48 can be used per POP of the owner of the PA block. Also in the ARIN region any organization can get a /48 PI block for about $100/year, as such these organizations won't be needing this address space either as they can easily take a /64 out of that for those needs. Firewalling is the key here. > I think the policy proposal that I sent to several regions includes text and > links to other documents that can clarify this perspective. > > For example in RIPE NCC: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html That is your proposal indeed. No "Operator" has stood behind this and various people from various organizations have clearly asked you and the RIPE NCC to *freeze* this proposal till at least the IETF has worked out. Anybody needing a "globally unique" block can get either PA or PI space. ULA-C as such is useless. Greets, Jeroen

2 1

Re: PI for Not-DNS Anycast.
by Mattias Ahnberg 14 Jun '07

14 Jun '07

> DALnet announces the same prefix in several places in an identical > fashion as the one I described. So no, it's not anycast as it's not > globally reachable. Other than 194.68.45.0/24 that can't be reached from anywhere we also have another netblock (194.14.236.0/24) that CAN be reached from everywhere i.e. more "true anycast". The obvious problem we face is ofcourse when a server dies and a user ends up on another one and the first comes back again they will be disconnected from the latter and forced onto the first. We're not very bothered by this compared to the advantages it gives us. For others it may be too bad of a setup, ofcourse. -- /ahnberg.

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] 2007-05 Discussion Period extended until 9 July 2007 (IPv6 ULA-Central)
by jwkckid1＠ix.netcom.com 11 Jun '07

11 Jun '07

Michael and all, Why not? There are efforts in IPv8 and in china, IPv9. -----Original Message----- >From: michael.dillon(a)bt.com >Sent: Jun 11, 2007 4:47 AM >To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net >Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2007-05 Discussion Period extended until 9 July 2007 (IPv6 ULA-Central) > >> PDP Number: 2007-05 >> IPv6 ULA-Central >> >> Dear Colleagues >> >> The Discussion Period for the proposal described in 2007-05 >> has been extended until 9 July 2007. > >It disturbs me to see that RIPE is seriously engaged in discussing the >implementation of an addressing proposal that the IETF has already >rejected. Anyone who supports this proposal AT THIS TIME, is also >attacking the current structure of the Regional Internet Registry system >and its relationship to IANA, the IETF and ICANN. > >This is not the time or the place to be discussing central ULA >addresses. If the IETF has rejected the idea in the past, then it is up >to people to fix their design and take it back to the IETF forums. >Regional Internet Registries should not create policy for numbering >resources which have not been created by the IETF or delegated to the >RIRs by IANA. > >--Michael Dillon > Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827

1 0

2007-05 Discussion Period extended until 9 July 2007 (IPv6 ULA-Central)
by Filiz Yilmaz 11 Jun '07

11 Jun '07

PDP Number: 2007-05 IPv6 ULA-Central Dear Colleagues The Discussion Period for the proposal described in 2007-05 has been extended until 9 July 2007. This policy is intended to allow the assignment of IPv6 blocks within the so-called 'Centrally Assigned Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses' to organisations or individuals requiring it. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

6 7

RE: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
by Tony Hain 08 Jun '07

08 Jun '07

I agree that this will help inform the debate, and while Iljitsch did a good job of outlining the issue, he left out a significant point::: People explicitly chose to be in the state of "as there is currently no obvious way to make services only available locally" by insisting that the local-scope addressing range have a global-scope as far as application developers were concerned. Now the application developers are complaining about the consequences of their choice, because the alternative to 'no routing path for an attack' is to insert a device that has to make policy decisions with limited information. The current ULA-central discussions will be directly involved in this issue. It is critical that all of the RIR's have policies establishing a mechanism for registering ULA-central prefixes & PI. For those who don't recall, the reason ULA-central was tabled was that it was seen as a potential end-run to acquire PI space in the absence of appropriate policy to do so out of a range recognized for global routing. The need for keeping some things local while others are global is real, and the lack of appropriate mechanisms to accomplish that through the routing system that is designed to deal with path selection leads to entire industries for fragile work-arounds along with their increased complexity. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces(a)arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces@arin.net] On Behalf Of > vixie(a)vix.com > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:59 PM > To: ppml(a)arin.net > Subject: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica > (seen on slashdot) > > i think that this article will help inform the debate around the ipv6 > transition: > > http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/ipv6-firewall-mixed-blessing.ars > _______________________________________________ > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (PPML(a)arin.net). > Manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

39 155

2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
by Filiz Yilmaz 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

PDP Number: 2006-01 Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations Dear Colleagues The text of the policy proposal 2006-01 has changed. We have published the new version today, as a result the discussion period for this proposal has been extended until 19 June 2007. This proposal is intended to provide a solution for organisations that need IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) assignments. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-poliy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

17 28