2007-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 August 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 13 August 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@ripe.net>. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
Hi, this entire proposal should have been terminated until the ipv6-wg @ ietf have finished their work. On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
PDP Number: 2007-05 IPv6 ULA-Central
Dear Colleagues
The Discussion Period for the proposal described in 2007-05 has been extended until 13 August 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@ripe.net>.
Regards
Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
-- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID roger@jorgensen.no | - IPv6 is The Key! -------------------------------------------------------
On Jul 16, Roger Jorgensen <rogerj@jorgensen.no> wrote:
this entire proposal should have been terminated until the ipv6-wg @ ietf have finished their work. <AOL>I agree.</AOL>
-- ciao, Marco
The Discussion Period for the proposal described in 2007-05 has been extended until 13 August 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:
This proposal should be rejected, not discussed. In fact, there are two different proposals being discussed in the IETF for some form of centrally-registered ULA addressing. Both proposals are in draft form and there is no way to predict which one will eventually be accepted or what kinds of changes will be made to the drafts before they become RFCs. This is important, because some of the changes have to do with how RIRs receive blocks of ULA addresses to register, and if that is not yet decided by the IETF, then there is no way for RIPE to register such addresses because RIPE won't have any such addresses to register. In addition, RIPE is part of a political system in which different responsibilities are placed on RIPE, IANA, ICANN, NRO and the IETF. This proposal goes beyond RIPE's responsibilities and attempts to usurp the responsibilities of IANA and the IETF. This is a BAD BAD thing to do, because if RIPE no longer adheres to the social contract, then there is no reason for the other organizations to continue working with RIPE. The whole system depends on cooperation, and this proposal does not demonstrate cooperation. --Michael Dillon
Hi, On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 01:31:48PM +0100, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
The Discussion Period for the proposal described in 2007-05 has been extended until 13 August 2007. [..] In addition, RIPE is part of a political system in which different responsibilities are placed on RIPE, IANA, ICANN, NRO and the IETF. This proposal goes beyond RIPE's responsibilities and attempts to usurp the responsibilities of IANA and the IETF. This is a BAD BAD thing to do, because if RIPE no longer adheres to the social contract, then there is no reason for the other organizations to continue working with RIPE. The whole system depends on cooperation, and this proposal does not demonstrate cooperation.
Please come down from your soap box again. The whole thing behind the proposal was "get the process going again", and it isn't unheard of to do work in parallel in the RIRs and in the IETF (see the 32 bit AS# policy). The reason for extending the discussion period is *specifically* to see what will happen in the IETF, and then decide how to go ahead with this proposal. If the IETF goes for "yes, ULA-C is a good thing", then we can adapt this proposal accordingly - if they go for "ULA-C is not going to happen! never ever!" Jordi can withdraw the proposal, and it will be history. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 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
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Gert Doering wrote: <snip>
The reason for extending the discussion period is *specifically* to see what will happen in the IETF, and then decide how to go ahead with this proposal. If the IETF goes for "yes, ULA-C is a good thing", then we can adapt this proposal accordingly - if they go for "ULA-C is not going to happen! never ever!" Jordi can withdraw the proposal, and it will be history.
The point is that what are being discussed are quite different from what the current probposal ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html ) says. It is probably that both the name, size and usage will probably be different. It is in short a quite different scenario. It will probably also outline a different assignment regime from the ULA-block too. -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID roger@jorgensen.no | - IPv6 is The Key! -------------------------------------------------------
Nobody knows what will be the result of the IETF process, and this is why I can't provide a new version of the proposal at this stage or decide if need to be withdrawn or whatever, so I need to put it "on-hold". If you read the PDP, you will realize that it doesn't allow a proposal to be put "on-hold", once the discussion phase is over, you either go for a new version, the review phase, or extend the discussion period. This discussion period extension works as a kind of "on-hold", especially if the author and/or other folks avoid discussing it, and that's what I'm doing being silent :-) Regards, Jordi
De: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj@jorgensen.no> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Fecha: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:09:12 +0200 (CEST) Para: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> CC: <michael.dillon@bt.com>, <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 August 2007 (IPv6 ULA-Central)
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Gert Doering wrote: <snip>
The reason for extending the discussion period is *specifically* to see what will happen in the IETF, and then decide how to go ahead with this proposal. If the IETF goes for "yes, ULA-C is a good thing", then we can adapt this proposal accordingly - if they go for "ULA-C is not going to happen! never ever!" Jordi can withdraw the proposal, and it will be history.
The point is that what are being discussed are quite different from what the current probposal ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html ) says. It is probably that both the name, size and usage will probably be different. It is in short a quite different scenario.
It will probably also outline a different assignment regime from the ULA-block too.
--
------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID roger@jorgensen.no | - IPv6 is The Key! -------------------------------------------------------
********************************************** 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.
participants (6)
-
Filiz Yilmaz -
Gert Doering -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
md＠Linux.IT -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
Roger Jorgensen