Jim, Regarding direction, ARIN staff implements policies that have reached community consensus as determined by the ARIN Advisory Council and as ratified by the Board of Trustees. In one sense, ARIN works like the IETF in that it is individuals who contribute to the discussion. An organization is one voice and is not viewed as representative of its members from the standpoint of numbers. You are correct. This does not preclude someone representative of the IPv6 Forum from making a statement on either the ppml or at a meeting on behalf of the Forum. One last point, if the Forum feels that the community is developing policy that is harmful then the Forum should certainly make a statement, more importantly, its individual members should become active voices in the discussion. There are a lot of voices in the IPv6 discussions but the discussion could be much more robust if those of the Forum were included. Ray
-----Original Message----- From: Bound, Jim [mailto:Jim.Bound@hp.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:30 AM To: Ray Plzak; Latif Ladid ("The New Internet based on IPv6"); Tony Hain; PPML; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Cc: Richard Jimmerson; Davis, Terry L; ollivier.robert@eurocontrol.fr; narten@us.ibm.com; Brig, Michael P CIV DISA GES-E; Pouffary, Yanick; Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI; Bound, Jim Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Question
Ray, So you don't take IETF direction but only from individuals in the IETF? Just want this to be clarified very clearly. This also does not preclude the IPv6 Forum stating a public position on the issue whether RIRs react to it or not. Not that will happen but it could if the pain is strong enough to prohibit IPv6 deployment.
Thanks /jim
-----Original Message----- From: Ray Plzak [mailto:plzak@arin.net] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 6:56 AM To: 'Latif Ladid ("The New Internet based on IPv6")'; Bound, Jim; 'Tony Hain'; 'PPML'; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Cc: 'Richard Jimmerson'; 'Davis, Terry L'; ollivier.robert@eurocontrol.fr; narten@us.ibm.com; 'Brig, Michael P CIV DISA GES-E'; Pouffary, Yanick; 'Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI' Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Question
The NAv6TF is in the ARIN region. If individuals associated with it think that ARIN should adopt a policy or change an existing policy they should not only say so they should propose such a policy. Remember policies in the ARIN region, like in all of the RIRs is made not by the RIR organization staff and board but by the community in the region. ARIN staff will be more than happy to help anyone through the process, which by the way, while an orderly and formal process is not onerous, but one designed to provide for an open and honest discussion of any policy proposal before it is adopted. If you are interested in pursuing this, please contact me and I will get a staff member to assist you.
Ray
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Latif Ladid ("The New Internet based on IPv6") Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 9:53 AM To: 'Bound, Jim'; 'Tony Hain'; 'PPML'; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Cc: 'Richard Jimmerson'; 'Davis, Terry L'; ollivier.robert@eurocontrol.fr; narten@us.ibm.com; 'Brig, Michael P CIV DISA GES-E'; 'Pouffary, Yanick'; 'Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI' Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Question
The technical community should fix this one before the ITU sees this as another chance to have a political say on the IPv6 addressing. These things leak fast. My advice is that ARIN should seriously own this issue before the ITU turns it to a sovereignty issue, which they could for sure win this time. I know one of their noodles is sizzling at it.
Cheers Latif
-----Original Message----- From: Bound, Jim [mailto:Jim.Bound@hp.com] Sent: 08 April 2006 14:52 To: Tony Hain; PPML; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Cc: Richard Jimmerson; Latif Ladid ("The New Internet based on IPv6"); Davis, Terry L; ollivier.robert@eurocontrol.fr; narten@us.ibm.com; Brig, Michael P CIV DISA GES-E; Pouffary, Yanick; Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI; Bound, Jim Subject: RE: Question
Tony,
Excellent response and educational for sure. It is my belief that the corporate business model today for operating networks may be broken and I think you supported that below? If not my apologies for bad parsing?
Their models were fine for an IPv4 world where NAT was required and some even confuse NAT with securing ones network (and some programs in the U.S. Government) and that is simply bad policy and view.
In the interim can this be resolved by RIRs creating some kind of additional wording that address reclaim will be done in manner that is negotiable, and do no harm to corporate or government business operations? This would buy us time to work on the issue and stop the FUD around this topic?
Also I am willing to sponsor a world wide IPv6 Forum BOF on PI and addressing you can lead as ajunct to one of our regular meetings you can lead for an entire day and we get the right players in the room. So think about that as another option too.
But do enjoy the beach this thread does not have to be resolved this week :--)
Really want to hear from all of you and discussion Terry D., Latif, Yanick, Dave G. Mike B. etc.
Thanks /jim
-----Original Message----- From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf@tndh.net] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 7:57 PM To: 'PPML'; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Cc: 'Richard Jimmerson'; Bound, Jim; 'Latif Ladid ("The New Internet based on IPv6")'; 'Davis, Terry L'; ollivier.robert@eurocontrol.fr; narten@us.ibm.com; 'Brig, Michael P CIV DISA GES-E'; Pouffary, Yanick; 'Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI' Subject: RE: Question
A public answer to a private question as I have been sitting on a beach for awhile without the laptop and missed some related conversations ... :)
Is the outcome really open for discussion on the PI issue? It doesn't sound like it is.
In the minds of some the route scaling issue outweighs any argument for PI. When taken to its extreme, there is a valid point that a broken routing system serves no one. At the same time the dogmatic stance by the ISPs enforcing lock-in is just as broken both for large organizations with financial or legal requirements for operational stability, and the individual consumer/small business with limited budgets looking for true competition. The hard part is finding the middle ground in a way that limits the exposure to a potential routing collapse.
I personally refuse to declare some needs legitimate and others not, as the only point of such differentiation is to establish a power broker. When all uses are legitimate, the problem boils down to the technical approach that can be scaled as necessary to contain growth in the routing system. This is the logic that leads me to the bit-interleaved geo that can be aggregated in varying size pockets as necessary using existing BGP deployments. We can start flat and implement aggregation over time when a region becomes too large to handle. One nice side effect of this geo approach is that it mitigates the continuing political demands for sovereign rights to IPv6 space.
Any aggregation approach will force the business models to change from current practice. That is not as bad a thing as the alarmists will make it out to be, because their accountants are claiming the current model is a broken money looser as it is (which if so means they will eventually change anyway). The primary difference is that there will need to be aggregation intermediaries between the last-mile and transit providers. The current model eliminates these middle-men by trading off their routing mitigation service against a larger routing table (actually they already exist in the right places but are currently limited to layer2 media aggregators). The anti-PI bunch is trying to use social engineering to directly counter the bottom line business reality that the customer will always win in the end. Rather than accept this situation and constructively work on the necessary business model and technology developments, they effectively stall progress by staunchly claiming there is no acceptable technical approach that works within the current business structure.
Making the RIRs be the police deciding who qualifies for PI and who does not just adds to their workload and raises costs. The beneficiaries of this gatekeeper approach are the ISPs that claim they need full routing knowledge everywhere, while the cost burden for supporting the waste-of-time qualification/evaluation work is borne by the applicant. Given that the most vocal and organized membership in the RIR community are the ISPs it is easy to understand why it would seem like the PI issue is already decided as closed. I tend to believe it will just drag out until enough of the corporate world becomes aware of the IPv4 exhaustion in light of their growth needs that they collectively appear at their RIR and demand an immediate solution. Unfortunately this 'wait till the last minute' tactic will likely result in a reactionary quickie with its own set of long term side effects.
A while back I tried to hold a BOF on geo PI in the IETF, but was told that shim6 was the anointed solution. Now that at least nanog has told the IAB where to put shim6 it might be possible to get the current IESG to reconsider. In any case the result would be a technical approach that would still require RIRs to establish policies around. As long as they are dominated by the ISPs it will be difficult to get real PI.
Tony