2008-02 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
PDP Number: 2008-02 Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2008-02 has been extended until 16 May 2008. With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html
I'm concerned with the way that this policy is worded. First, it has the same impact as saying that any LIR with IPv4 resources is exempt from 5.1.1 c) in RIPE 421 which says that you must have a plan to sub-allocate IPv6 addresses in order to justify an IPv6 block. This has the effect of raising the barrier to entry for organizations which do no currently have IPv4 allocations, i.e. the criteria for new entrants is stricter than for current RIPE members. Second, some of the organizations receiving these /32 blocks would be able to justify much larger blocks. We got a /22 last year for instance. It seems to me that it would be nicer to offer LIRs an IPv6 block rather than automatically allocating one. If an LIR might be able to justify a larger allocation than /32, then the offer could explain how to do that. This issue here is one of communication. If you simply allocate an IPv6 block but do not clearly communicate this to the LIR (including acknowledgement from the LIR) then you are simply making meaningless entries in a database. The LIR will never use the block and in the next two or three years they will submit another application, or else swamp the RIPE help desk with queries about this strange database object that they have discovered. I am generally in favour of this but I think it needs to be fair to all organizations by removing the condition in 5.1.1 c) in RIPE 421 and it needs to begin by engaging the LIR to ensure that they understand that a /32 is about to be allocated, and they are ready to accept the allocation. The process of allocation is much more than making a database entry. Communication with the LIR and acknowledgement of the LIR are necessary in order to allocate an address block. --Michael Dillon
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
PDP Number: 2008-02 Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR
Dear Colleagues,
The Review Period for the proposal 2008-02 has been extended until 16 May 2008.
With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings.
You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>.
Regards,
Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
I'm also against this proposal. LIRs should be able to request their v6 address space according to their needs. If some (i mean the majority) still didn't do it, they should be able to do it in the future based on real numbers, and thus getting the proper IPv6 allocation size (which might not be a /32...). Would this policy, if accepted, be OK with the IANA and the other RIRs? What would happen if a RIR community tried to pull a last+preemptive IPv*4* allocation for all its LIRs? ;-) Seriously... i'm convinced the original idea behind this policy had a good intention, but let's focus our efforts in explaining why do we need an IPv6 Internet, and in really doing it! Enforcement policies (like this one) will not cut it. Best Regards, ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Friac,as See: Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN) www.gigapix.pt FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional www.ipv6.eu Av. do Brasil, n.101 www.6diss.org 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, Europe Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167 www.fccn.pt ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The end is near........ see http://ipv4.potaroo.net "Internet is just routes (241744/992), naming (billions) and... people!" Esta mensagem foi enviada de: / This message was sent from: 2001:690:2080:8004:250:daff:fe3b:2830 Aviso de Confidencialidade Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo de imediato. Warning This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received due to any error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately.
With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html
this proposal is silly and restrictive. we should give a /24 away to all people that pay their electric bill. </sarcasm> is anyone else here old enough to remember the A and B giveaways? does this seem at all familiar? and for those, they at least had to ask. what do the advocates think giving something to someone that does not want it will accomplish? is it not a like throwing yourself at the ground and missing? randy
With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings.
Under current IPv6 allocation policies, I understand that the allocation process goes like this: lir: please give me a /32; i intend to assign IPv6 addresses. ripe ncc: here you go. In this light, 2008-02 is a very odd solution to a problem which - as far as I can tell - doesn't exist. But I might be tempted to support it if the RIPE NCC were to hand out a free packet of Smarties with every /32. Nick
Hi, On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 02:20:26PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
But I might be tempted to support it if the RIPE NCC were to hand out a free packet of Smarties with every /32.
In the strive for balanced and fair policies, this would need to include that all existing IPv6 allocation holders get a packet of Smarties as well. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 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
In the strive for balanced and fair policies, this would need to include that all existing IPv6 allocation holders get a packet of Smarties as well.
this is back asswards. everyone who buys a packet of smarties should be given a /32 randy
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:28:39PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
In the strive for balanced and fair policies, this would need to include that all existing IPv6 allocation holders get a packet of Smarties as well.
this is back asswards. everyone who buys a packet of smarties should be given a /32
randy
there will still be too much v6 space left... a v6 /32 for every mars bar!
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:28:39PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
In the strive for balanced and fair policies, this would need to include that all existing IPv6 allocation holders get a packet of Smarties as well.
this is back asswards. everyone who buys a packet of smarties should be given a /32
Do we really need to allocate a /37 per smartie? But in all seriousness, I don't like this proposal as it stands. -- Tim
On 28 apr 2008, at 15:20, Nick Hilliard wrote:
With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings.
Under current IPv6 allocation policies, I understand that the allocation process goes like this:
lir: please give me a /32; i intend to assign IPv6 addresses.
ripe ncc: here you go.
In this light, 2008-02 is a very odd solution to a problem which - as far as I can tell - doesn't exist. But I might be tempted to support it if the RIPE NCC were to hand out a free packet of Smarties with every /32.
Following up on last week`s meeting, it seems that the current idea is to just tell the LIR's to go to ripe and request IPv6, which isn't a real policy change and more of a marketing effort. If this is the case, I don't think this belongs in this WG and probably should be moved to NCC-services-wg, any thoughts on that one ? Groet, MarcoH
If this is the case, I don't think this belongs in this WG and probably should be moved to NCC-services-wg, any thoughts on that one ?
I agree. 2008-02 should be withdrawn because it is not a policy change and further discussion of promotional activities should go to either the IPv6 or the NCC Services WGs. --Michael Dillon
Hi Michael,
I agree. 2008-02 should be withdrawn because it is not a policy change
The proposer has already requested us to withdraw 2008-01 and 2008-02. Sander Steffann APWG co-chair
participants (10)
-
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Carlos Friacas -
Filiz Yilmaz -
Gert Doering -
Marco Hogewoning -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
Nick Hilliard -
Randy Bush -
Sander Steffann -
Tim Chown