Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Late, but anyway. We support this proposal. MVH/Regards Ragnar
-----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- bounces@ripe.net] På vegne av Emilio Madaio Sendt: 21. oktober 2011 12:45 Til: policy-announce@ripe.net Kopi: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Emne: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Dear Colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2011.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Hello, Apologize, once again, however, I disagree. My first question is: if we know the address allocation rules then is it possible to make a transition scenario wich keeps these rules? The answer is yes, however, 6RD developers not made any effort to deal with these rules. This should be they problems, not ours. Second question: tha 6RD concept and its conflict with address allocation rules was hiden? The answer is NO. János Mohácsi and me wrote a lenghty paper on this topic, submitted it to the Networks2008 conference, AND gave a copy of it to Rémi Deprés at the IETF meeting in Ireland in 2008 August. Third question: if we would like to adopt ourself to 6RD, then should we change our rules this way? The answer is: definitely not. 6RD is just a transition method which should not be use for long time. So if somebody think about exeptional looseng of rules, then I would suggest to think about allocating temporaly a block off address for 6RD, which MUST be returned within 3-5 years!! Best, Géza On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Anfinsen, Ragnar < Ragnar.Anfinsen@altibox.no> wrote:
Late, but anyway.
We support this proposal.
MVH/Regards Ragnar
-----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- bounces@ripe.net] På vegne av Emilio Madaio Sendt: 21. oktober 2011 12:45 Til: policy-announce@ripe.net Kopi: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Emne: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Dear Colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2011.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
On 11/8/11 1:13 PM, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
Hello,
Apologize, once again, however, I disagree.
My first question is: if we know the address allocation rules then is it possible to make a transition scenario wich keeps these rules?
The answer is yes, however, 6RD developers not made any effort to deal with these rules.
This should be they problems, not ours.
Dear Turchanyi, We are not protocol police, for this discussion there is IETF. 6RD is being deployed on the field and this proposal only removes the speed-bumps without inserting new troubles. And we want IPv6 deployed, do we?
Second question: tha 6RD concept and its conflict with address allocation rules was hiden?
The answer is NO. János Mohácsi and me wrote a lenghty paper on this topic, submitted it to the Networks2008 conference, AND gave a copy of it to Rémi Deprés at the IETF meeting in Ireland in 2008 August.
Good. So you talked to IETF folks :)
Third question: if we would like to adopt ourself to 6RD, then should we change our rules this way?
The answer is: definitely not.
6RD is just a transition method which should not be use for long time. So if somebody think about exeptional looseng of rules, then I would suggest to think about allocating temporaly a block off address for 6RD, which MUST be returned within 3-5 years!!
We've already been through this discussion, I believe it's in the archives. Majority of community feedback went into a way, that 6RD is nothing special and we are not happy to spend additional resources for recollecting the "special" allocations later on. We need to start thinking how to remove obstacles for IPv6 deployment and not how to put them in there (like we had to do it for IPv4 in order to slow-down depletion). Regards, Jan Žorž
Geza, [...]
The answer is yes, however, 6RD developers not made any effort to deal with these rules.
This should be they problems, not ours.
Second question: tha 6RD concept and its conflict with address allocation rules was hiden?
The answer is NO. János Mohácsi and me wrote a lenghty paper on this topic, submitted it to the Networks2008 conference, AND gave a copy of it to Rémi Deprés at the IETF meeting in Ireland in 2008 August.
OK, I'll take the bait. are you referring to "Scoped IPv4 addresses"? looking at the proposal, I don't understand how that solves the problem at hand? - "how to encode multiple IPv4 subnets of varying sizes into an IPv6 prefix" assuming no renumbering of existing CPEs. 6rd already supports more efficient coding in the case where CPEs are numbered out of 1918, by e.g. masking out the first 8 bits in an 10/8. the understanding I got from the room, was that moving to an initial /29 allocation on request, was a good and useful change for _native_ IPv6 deployments. sure, 6rd deployments would benefit from it too, but I wouldn't say that shortcomings in 6rd is driving this policy change any longer. cheers, Ole
On 08.11.11 13:13, "Turchanyi Geza" <turchanyi.geza@gmail.com<mailto:turchanyi.geza@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello, Apologize, once again, however, I disagree. My first question is: if we know the address allocation rules then is it possible to make a transition scenario wich keeps these rules? The answer is yes, however, 6RD developers not made any effort to deal with these rules. This should be they problems, not ours. Second question: tha 6RD concept and its conflict with address allocation rules was hiden? The answer is NO. János Mohácsi and me wrote a lenghty paper on this topic, submitted it to the Networks2008 conference, AND gave a copy of it to Rémi Deprés at the IETF meeting in Ireland in 2008 August. Third question: if we would like to adopt ourself to 6RD, then should we change our rules this way? The answer is: definitely not. 6RD is just a transition method which should not be use for long time. So if somebody think about exeptional looseng of rules, then I would suggest to think about allocating temporaly a block off address for 6RD, which MUST be returned within 3-5 years!! Best, Géza The question here is; how can we deploy IPv6 quicker? Well, 6rd is one of the technologies that can be used. I will not go into discussions about whether 6RD is good or bad, address policy wise. However, for our sake, the interesting part of this policy is getting a /29 without the need to justify it. It would for us be more easily to make a good address plan if more bits where available from the start. 2011-04 will enable that. MVH/Regards Ragnar
participants (4)
-
Anfinsen, Ragnar -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Ole Troan -
Turchanyi Geza