2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
PDP Number: 2008-06 Use of final /8 Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-06.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 12 November 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
I wonder why this policy doesn't require the LIRs to have an IPv6 allocation before they apply for one of the last few IPv4 blocks? Is there any good reason to give out one of the last IPv4 blocks to an LIR which has no intention of deploying IPv6? In other words, if the policy is intended to only provide enough IPv4 resources to ease the transition, shouldn't the policy also require that the LIR has taken the basic step of getting an IPv6 allocation? It would also be nice if the policy had a clearer statement about this being a quota or rationing system. --Michael Dillon
I also agree that the policy should include some statements regarding IPv6 allocation. In fact I think that existing LIRs have very well warned about the end of the world^H^H^H^H^H IPv4 address space available so I think that the proposal should be more in the lines of: 1. New LIRs: Get the minimum allocation IF they already have a IPv6 allocation OR the ask for an IPv6 allocation in the same request. 2. Existing LIR: Sorry boys, you had a lot of time to prepare for this. 3. OK. Agree with a secuirity pool. Regards, Fernando El 15/10/08 17:42, "michael.dillon@bt.com" <michael.dillon@bt.com> escribió:
I wonder why this policy doesn't require the LIRs to have an IPv6 allocation before they apply for one of the last few IPv4 blocks? Is there any good reason to give out one of the last IPv4 blocks to an LIR which has no intention of deploying IPv6?
In other words, if the policy is intended to only provide enough IPv4 resources to ease the transition, shouldn't the policy also require that the LIR has taken the basic step of getting an IPv6 allocation?
It would also be nice if the policy had a clearer statement about this being a quota or rationing system.
--Michael Dillon
-- Fernando García Fernández D.G. Integración de Redes y Sistemas Josefa Valcarcel, 26 Edificio Merrimack III Madrid - 28027 Tel. Fijo: 901900900 ext 40383 Fax: (+34) 914313240 Tel. Móvil: (+34) 649428591 E-mail: fernando.garcia@tecnocom.es http://www.tecnocom.es Por favor, antes de imprimir este mensaje, asegúrate de que es necesario. Ayudemos a cuidar el medio ambiente Confidencial. Para uso exclusivamente interno. Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización está prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente.Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.El correo electrónico vía Internet no permite asegurar la confidencialidad de los mensajes que se transmiten ni su integridad o correcta recepción. Tecnocom no asume ninguna responsabilidad por estas circunstancias. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by a professional privilege or whose disclosure is prohibited by law. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any read, dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If this message has been received in error, please immediately notify us via e-mail and delete it.Internet e-mail neither guarantees the confidentiality nor the integrity or proper receipt of the messages sent. Tecnocom does not assume any liability for those circumstances.
García Fernández wrote:
I also agree that the policy should include some statements regarding IPv6 allocation.
In fact I think that existing LIRs have very well warned about the end of the world^H^H^H^H^H IPv4 address space available so I think that the proposal should be more in the lines of:
1. New LIRs: Get the minimum allocation IF they already have a IPv6 allocation OR the ask for an IPv6 allocation in the same request.
as we are using power to coerce, i think they should agree to vote for obama. randy
The first phrase of the point 1 of the proposal states that: ³Each new LIR will receive IPv4 addresses which they can use for supporting legacy IPv4 services to ensure their full presence on the IPv4 Internet during the transition phase to IPv6². If they don¹t have IPv6 addresses how are they going to do the transition? And the RIPE actually uses power. The use power to coerce now when they ask me to demonstrate that I really need new IPv4 when I ask for them (I need to send an addressing plan, and justification for it). They would use a similar power to coerce to see that new LIRs are implementing IPv6. I think that power coerce in these situations is good. And actually RIPE doesn¹t have LIRs in the United States so we can¹t vote for Obama or McCain (though their decisions impact on us, but that is another story to be discussed in the RIPE dinner). Regards, Fernando. El 15/10/08 18:27, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> escribió:
García Fernández wrote:
I also agree that the policy should include some statements regarding IPv6 allocation.
In fact I think that existing LIRs have very well warned about the end of the world^H^H^H^H^H IPv4 address space available so I think that the proposal should be more in the lines of:
1. New LIRs: Get the minimum allocation IF they already have a IPv6 allocation OR the ask for an IPv6 allocation in the same request.
as we are using power to coerce, i think they should agree to vote for obama.
randy
-- Fernando García Fernández D.G. Integración de Redes y Sistemas Josefa Valcarcel, 26 Edificio Merrimack III Madrid - 28027 Tel. Fijo: 901900900 ext 40383 Fax: (+34) 914313240 Tel. Móvil: (+34) 649428591 E-mail: fernando.garcia@tecnocom.es http://www.tecnocom.es Por favor, antes de imprimir este mensaje, asegúrate de que es necesario. Ayudemos a cuidar el medio ambiente Confidencial. Para uso exclusivamente interno. Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización está prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente.Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.El correo electrónico vía Internet no permite asegurar la confidencialidad de los mensajes que se transmiten ni su integridad o correcta recepción. Tecnocom no asume ninguna responsabilidad por estas circunstancias. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee and may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL and protected by a professional privilege or whose disclosure is prohibited by law. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any read, dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If this message has been received in error, please immediately notify us via e-mail and delete it.Internet e-mail neither guarantees the confidentiality nor the integrity or proper receipt of the messages sent. Tecnocom does not assume any liability for those circumstances.
García Fernández wrote:
1. New LIRs: Get the minimum allocation IF they already have a IPv6 allocation OR the ask for an IPv6 allocation in the same request.
There is no difficult to get an IPv6 network. Just to send a request, regarding they want to use it or not. So this point is useless or even harm as wastes IPv6 resources.
2. Existing LIR: Sorry boys, you had a lot of time to prepare for this.
Agree.
3. OK. Agree with a secuirity pool.
Agree. This can be named "The Golden IPv4 Pool" as for price it will be finally sold^Wallocated ;))) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
On Oct 28, 2008, at 11:55 AM, Max Tulyev wrote:
García Fernández wrote:
1. New LIRs: Get the minimum allocation IF they already have a IPv6 allocation OR the ask for an IPv6 allocation in the same request.
There is no difficult to get an IPv6 network. Just to send a request, regarding they want to use it or not. So this point is useless or even harm as wastes IPv6 resources.
It seems to me this is just there 'for completeness', by the time this policy applies it seems that building an IPv4 only network won't get you that far as the rest of the world has run out, won't get any new ones and finally will be working on v6 rollout. Marco
Hi Michael, michael.dillon@bt.com said the following on 16/10/08 01:42:
I wonder why this policy doesn't require the LIRs to have an IPv6 allocation before they apply for one of the last few IPv4 blocks? Is there any good reason to give out one of the last IPv4 blocks to an LIR which has no intention of deploying IPv6?
It's not clear to me what an organisation can do with a small amount of IPv4 address space at the stage when this policy would come into play. I think anyone who wants their business to carry on growing beyond the run-out of the IANA IPv4 pool will already have IPv6 on their radar. I suppose they could do NAT upon NAT upon NAT, but that doesn't sound like a viable option to me. Hence opting for the softer option of simply sharing out the remaining IPv4 /8 as per the proposal.
It would also be nice if the policy had a clearer statement about this being a quota or rationing system.
Isn't it self evident? (LIR will only get the RIPE NCC minimum allocation in force at the time the allocation is requested.) philip --
Isn't it self evident? (LIR will only get the RIPE NCC minimum allocation in force at the time the allocation is requested.)
It is self-evident that dihydrogen monoxide is a deadly poison which kills people if consumed in a large enough quantity. But it is not plain English. Policy documents should be straightforward and clear. In particular, policy documents for an international organization, should be clear and not mince words. --Michael Dillon P.S. some definitions "Plain English" means text which is written in clear, direct and understandable language. "Dihydrogen monoxide" is H2O or water. If you drink too much water, it will kill you. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511475/Man-35-drank-death-consu ming-water.html>
On 15/10/2008 5:42, "michael.dillon@bt.com" <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
I wonder why this policy doesn't require the LIRs to have an IPv6 allocation before they apply for one of the last few IPv4 blocks?
It might happen that ISPs in an area could provide customers adequate IPv6 space but not IPv4 space. In such a situation it might be necessary to get a block of IPv4 from the RIPE NCC but not be necessary to get a block of IPv6. It seems unreasonable to require people to take resources they do not want or need. Regards, Leo Vegoda
I'd prefer so see more specific restrictions on at least part of this block to secure it for transitional purposes. F.ex. restricted to minimum allocations reserved for new LIRs who qualify for IPv6 and don't already have a v4 footprint. -- Per Heldal - http://heldal.eml.cc/
participants (10)
-
Fernando García Fernández -
Filiz Yilmaz -
García Fernández, Fernando
-
Leo Vegoda -
Marco Hogewoning -
Max Tulyev -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
Per Heldal -
Philip Smith -
Randy Bush