June 2009 - address-policy-wg

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

You lose your arguments? And just braving your "involvements". Ha-Ha! I'm with RIPE from 1997, and yearly attending RIPE's meeting, so I can't be called "not working as part of the RIPE addressing community". But it IS not argument and I'll never be so puffed up to use it as an argument. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:32 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] > > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 02:24:42PM +0400, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > > This has always been my understanding on the principles that govern > > > the RIRs' operation - "provide unique numbers to the people that > > > need unique numbers". Be it IPv4, IPv6 or ASes. > > > > No, because it has (providing the "numbers") the scope - the > Internet, > > If I want to create my own network, not connected to the scope, I > > don't need to use any of rules of disconnected network. I'm surprised > > that you are not understanding and differentiating that. > > To phrase this a bit more blunt: you're completely off-base. I was > wording this in a polite way would have permitted you to step back > without losing face. > > Before accusing people in this list that they have no clue or no > understanding how this thing works, how the RIR system works, and so on > - maybe you should actually try to do a bit of reading on how long some > of these people have been actively working as part of the RIPE > addressing community. > > > > Maybe, following your thoughts, I could get the IP number for my pet? > > Just to be more "connected" to the network? > > If your pet has an IP connection, and you can make a good point that > it's very likely that your pet will be connected to other pets *using > IP networks*, the point could be argued that this is a valid usage of > IP resources. > > If your pet is not using IP networking technology, it doesn't need IP > addresses. > > > (This was my last e-mail on this topic, and I would kindly ask the > other mailing list participants to refrain from answering this troll > until he shows a bit more interesting in understanding reality). > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- > Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
by poty＠iiat.ru 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

> -----Original Message----- > From: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet [mailto:Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at] > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:09 AM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New > Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address > Allocation Policy) > > Vladislav, > > I have to strongly disagree with your assertions. > > poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > > Nick, just because there is the word "private". > > Why should RIPE or some other organization (including mine) provide > the > > registration and supporting service (for example - uniqueness) for > PRIVATE > > networks? > > First of all, RIPE is the Community, the RIPE NCC is executing the > policies > and providing e.g. the Registration Services. > RIPE = RIPE NCC of course in my writings. Just to be more short. > Every organsiation obtaining services, e.g. an IP-Address Assignment or > an Allocation are contributing to offset the expenses; either directly > or by way of an existing LIR. What service do YOU mean? Could it be possible for me (just for prestige of my company) to obtain several class-A IPv4 blocks just paying for the RIPE NCC (now correctly written?) service? We are discriminating here not to waste the address space for that? Why we should be so happy to waste the space in the other way? I speak not about expenses, you know! > > If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies - > > it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means for > > achieving that! > > The TCP/IP Technology (including the resources to uniquely identify the > individual components) are - and indeed should continue to be - > accessible > to the full community. Whether using this stuff on the "Internet" or > for > some other purpose is not a discriminating factor here. I fully agree with that! But companies, not involved in the communication with other parties, called the Internet, should create their own uniqueness for themselves. Why it should be achieved by help of irrelevant (read - the Internet) party? > PS: we have already seen the disadvantage of liberally applying > RFC1918, > i.e. non-unique, addressing in organisations that eventually were > (forced > to) connecting to other organisations.... Sometimes it IS disadvantage, sometimes - not. It is really depends on the point of view. I think RFC 1918 prolonged the life of v4 space and it IS an advantage. And problems... Problems were, is and will be... It shouldn't be use as an argument. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

2 1

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

> -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 4:00 PM > To: michael.dillon(a)bt.com > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] > > Hi, > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:03:16AM +0100, michael.dillon(a)bt.com wrote: > > A very large number of organizations depend on these > > internetworks, and they would not be terribly happy if > > ISPs would hijack the entire IP address space for their > > own profits. But I think that the RIR boards understand > > this and have no intention of changing the rules to > > reserve IP addresses only for the public Internet. > > Let me second that. > > This has always been my understanding on the principles that govern > the RIRs' operation - "provide unique numbers to the people that need > unique numbers". Be it IPv4, IPv6 or ASes. No, because it has (providing the "numbers") the scope - the Internet, If I want to create my own network, not connected to the scope, I don't need to use any of rules of disconnected network. I'm surprised that you are not understanding and differentiating that. Maybe, following your thoughts, I could get the IP number for my pet? Just to be more "connected" to the network? > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- > Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

2 1

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

Yes, Wilfried, interesting, but it seems that YOU are behind the reality, not mine. > -----Original Message----- > From: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet [mailto:Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at] > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:51 AM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] > > poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > > IPv4 exists most of it's time without RIR at all. So it's not prove > > anything. > > May I suggest that you read up on reality, in particular the period > of substantial growth and wide-spread penetration? > > > Other consideration is only philosophy, not policy. > > Interesting... > My feeling is that we should go back to real-life issues. > > Wilfried.

1 0