Dear AP WG, 2011-02 has been a difficult one, and you have noticed the lack of visible progress. So let us explain, and propose a way forward. The RIPE policy development process calls for "consensus" to make policy from policy proposals. Sometimes it's very clear if consensus has been reached, and sometimes it's very clear that consensus has NOT been reached. When looking for consensus, we have to see if there are objections to the proposal, and if those objections are justified - see the beginning of section 2 of RIPE-500: 'In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions for changes to the proposal and objections regarding the proposal must be justified with supporting arguments'. This is explicitly repeated in section 2.4. In 2011-02, we have the case of "rough consensus with objections": We have a number of people who spoke up in favour of the proposal, both during the discussion/review phases and during Last Call. A few persons had serious doubts about routing table growth and about PI in general, but still spoke in favour of the proposal, or abstained. One person opposes the proposal, based on worries about highly accelerated and thus unsustainable routing table growth as a consequence of the proposal. Given that some of the other RIRs already have less restrictive IPv6 PI policies, the available numbers on their PI assignments and the routes seen in the global IPv6 BGP table do not back this assumption. Neither does the data from the global IPv4 BGP table, where the RIPE region has always had a very relaxed PI policy. So the AP WG chairs have decided (after long discussion) that we do have rough consensus on this policy proposal, and the remaining objections will be ignored. Sander Steffann announced this at the APWG meeting - and one member of the WG spoke up at the microphone and disagreed with our conclusion. So we spent some more weeks discussing and thinking about this, and this is what we do now: - the WG chairs declare consensus - but the *working group* has the last word on any policy decision, so we call for two weeks of "Last Call" on this decision Procedure-wise, this is not about the *content* of the proposal now, and it's not useful to repeat the discussion about routing table growth etc. now - we've heard all arguments. What we need to decide now is whether the voices from the community so far form "rough consensus" on the proposal, or not. If you, the WG, decides that we do not have consensus, the policy proposal goes back to "discussion phase", and the proposer will need to work with those people that spoke up against the proposal to integrate their ideas, and come up with a new version of the policy proposal that might then reach consensus. sincerly yours, Gert Doering & Sander Steffann, APWG chairs -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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
Procedure-wise, this is not about the *content* of the proposal now, and it's not useful to repeat the discussion about routing table growth etc. now - we've heard all arguments. What we need to decide now is whether the voices from the community so far form "rough consensus" on the proposal, or not.
I'd like to have it back to discussion. My position is only formal: The proposal argues that a requirement (multihoming) is not longer needed, because there might be an other (assumed to be weaker) condition (own AS) for PIv6. I do accept the reasoning itself, but not the formal consequence drawn by the proposal. If somebody likes to have "A or B" instead of "A", it's not sufficent to remove "A".
I agree that rough consensus has been established. Scott On Dec 8, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Dear AP WG,
2011-02 has been a difficult one, and you have noticed the lack of visible progress. So let us explain, and propose a way forward.
The RIPE policy development process calls for "consensus" to make policy from policy proposals. Sometimes it's very clear if consensus has been reached, and sometimes it's very clear that consensus has NOT been reached.
When looking for consensus, we have to see if there are objections to the proposal, and if those objections are justified - see the beginning of section 2 of RIPE-500: 'In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions for changes to the proposal and objections regarding the proposal must be justified with supporting arguments'. This is explicitly repeated in section 2.4.
In 2011-02, we have the case of "rough consensus with objections":
We have a number of people who spoke up in favour of the proposal, both during the discussion/review phases and during Last Call. A few persons had serious doubts about routing table growth and about PI in general, but still spoke in favour of the proposal, or abstained.
One person opposes the proposal, based on worries about highly accelerated and thus unsustainable routing table growth as a consequence of the proposal.
Given that some of the other RIRs already have less restrictive IPv6 PI policies, the available numbers on their PI assignments and the routes seen in the global IPv6 BGP table do not back this assumption. Neither does the data from the global IPv4 BGP table, where the RIPE region has always had a very relaxed PI policy.
So the AP WG chairs have decided (after long discussion) that we do have rough consensus on this policy proposal, and the remaining objections will be ignored. Sander Steffann announced this at the APWG meeting - and one member of the WG spoke up at the microphone and disagreed with our conclusion.
So we spent some more weeks discussing and thinking about this, and this is what we do now:
- the WG chairs declare consensus
- but the *working group* has the last word on any policy decision, so we call for two weeks of "Last Call" on this decision
Procedure-wise, this is not about the *content* of the proposal now, and it's not useful to repeat the discussion about routing table growth etc. now - we've heard all arguments. What we need to decide now is whether the voices from the community so far form "rough consensus" on the proposal, or not.
If you, the WG, decides that we do not have consensus, the policy proposal goes back to "discussion phase", and the proposer will need to work with those people that spoke up against the proposal to integrate their ideas, and come up with a new version of the policy proposal that might then reach consensus.
sincerly yours,
Gert Doering & Sander Steffann, APWG chairs
-- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
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
Hi, thank you for carefully choosing your actions and wording about this, as a community member i appreciate that *thumbsup* ... [...]
So we spent some more weeks discussing and thinking about this, and this is what we do now:
- the WG chairs declare consensus
- but the *working group* has the last word on any policy decision, so we call for two weeks of "Last Call" on this decision
Procedure-wise, this is not about the *content* of the proposal now, and it's not useful to repeat the discussion about routing table growth etc. now - we've heard all arguments. What we need to decide now is whether the voices from the community so far form "rough consensus" on the proposal, or not.
If you, the WG, decides that we do not have consensus, the policy proposal goes back to "discussion phase", and the proposer will need to work with those people that spoke up against the proposal to integrate their ideas, and come up with a new version of the policy proposal that might then reach consensus.
... but let me be a bit more blunt here (thank god i do not wear hats or chairs on my head usually), and say we do have (rough) consensus for a long time already and finally should move on. (My personal point of view of course, but i think there is only one person objecting violently, and i don't see anything about veto-rights in the PDP) I'm still happy to consider any new proposal how to do things better with PI from anyone. But keeping PIv6 different from PIv4 just isn't compatible with reality right now, and there are no signs of any real downsides. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect
Sascha Lenz wrote Dez. 09 2011 - 00:23:
Hi,
thank you for carefully choosing your actions and wording about this, as a community member i appreciate that *thumbsup* ...
[...]
I'm still happy to consider any new proposal how to do things better with PI from anyone. But keeping PIv6 different from PIv4 just isn't compatible with reality right now, and there are no signs of any real downsides.
+1 it's irreproducible that it's currently not possible to assign PIv6 for recipients which can apply for PIv4. Why are we putting spokes in sb.'s wheels on moving forward to IPv6 at the moment?
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards
Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect
Best regards, Florian Fuessl
Gert Doering wrote:
- but the *working group* has the last word on any policy decision, so we call for two weeks of "Last Call" on this decision
As much as I like to see this policy change implemented and as much as I disagree with Geza, technically if someone is opposing (and I think all would agree that it was not trolling), then that is technically not an consensus. However, I'd like to hear Gezas opinion on wether rough consensus has been reached and would subscribe to his view on that. Regards, Immo
As much as I like to see this policy change implemented and as much as I disagree with Geza, technically if someone is opposing (and I think all would agree that it was not trolling), then that is technically not an consensus.
you may find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making, especially the section on "Decision rules," usefully confusing. randy
Randy,
As much as I like to see this policy change implemented and as much as I disagree with Geza, technically if someone is opposing (and I think all would agree that it was not trolling), then that is technically not an consensus. you may find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making, especially the section on "Decision rules," usefully confusing.
Ok, you got me. It was late and my statemant was, as you pointed out, flawed. I'll have another try to get up a proper justification for my point: I'd like to point on the introduction of this article: "Consensus is defined [...] as, first, general agreement, and second, group solidarity of belief or sentiment." General agreement is established by these rules you refered to. However, "group solidarity of belief or sentiment" in my opinion isn't that easy. I personally am not sure wether we have "group solidarity of belief or sentiment" here, and I don't think we can declare it without Geza agreeing. To be clear here: that does not meen that Geza must agree on the proposal or withdraw his objections. I only ask wether he considers the groups belief and sentiment on accepting the proposal solidary. Immo
On 09/12/2011 09:47, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg wrote:
I personally am not sure wether we have "group solidarity of belief or sentiment" here, and I don't think we can declare it without Geza agreeing.
To be clear here: that does not meen that Geza must agree on the proposal or withdraw his objections. I only ask wether he considers the groups belief and sentiment on accepting the proposal solidary.
Immo, You're arguing that the person who shouts loudest should have a veto. This is not consensus, and is not how APWG operates. Nick
On 9 Dec 2011, at 09:47, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg wrote:
I personally am not sure wether we have "group solidarity of belief or sentiment" here
Luckily, this is not a decision you alone have to take for the rest of us. The WG does so collectively. The "group solidarity of belief or sentiment" of the WG is that there *is* consensus. [Or at least that's my impression.] If the AP WG chairs determine that the WG has arrived at a consensus, consensus is declared and the proposal goes on to the next stage of the PDP. If you personally are unsure if the WG has reached consensus on 2011-02, say so. And do it very clearly. For bonus points, explain why you have doubts. This might encourage others holding that view to that so too. Explaining why you are unsure would perhaps allow others to clarify matters. If there are enough people on the list saying they are unsure, then by definition we can't have consensus on the proposal in the WG because that level of doubt shows there is uncertainty about "group solidarity of belief or sentiment".
I don't think we can declare it without Geza agreeing.
We can. And I think we already have. Geza's consent (or lack of opposition) is not critical to declaring consensus on 2011-02. He does not have a veto. Nobody does.
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 10:49:11AM +0000, Jim Reid wrote:
I don't think we can declare it without Geza agreeing.
We can. And I think we already have. Geza's consent (or lack of opposition) is not critical to declaring consensus on 2011-02. He does not have a veto. Nobody does.
either way this is not about executing a veto and the whole debate around a particular person's position misses the point and puts an unfair onus on that person. I'd rather wish the same logic would be applied to the undoubtedly high number of 'yes' votes(sic!). If it's all about 'one person cannot block' then tell me, how many would it need? Since the burden of proof seems to be on the 'objector' rather than the proponent, I cannot prove sky will fall, but I know that once sky starts falling, discussing the counter measures will become increasingly unpleasant. -Peter
On 9 Dec 2011, at 14:42, Peter Koch wrote:
If it's all about 'one person cannot block' then tell me, how many would it need?
The same number as it needs in the dnsop WG you chair at IETF Peter. :-) We both know this is not decided by absolute numbers Peter. The Chair(s) of the relevant WG exercise their best judgement on the position of the WG as a whole. [That's why they get the big bucks. :-)] If they believe there's consensus in the WG, that's the decision. They could decide that one lone voice knows better than the rest of the WG => further discussion or refinement of the proposal is needed. That will depend on the specific circumstances and the nature of that (isolated?) objection. Note too that the earlier discussion was sparked by the suggestion that there could be no consensus on 2011-02 unless Geza said this was OK. We both know that this is not how RIPE's consensus decision-making process works. You might recall how the DNS WG arrived at a consensus response to the DoC proposal for getting the DNS root signed a few years ago and who made the judgement on whether a consensus had been reached. Some people were unhappy or uncomfortable with aspects of that response yet it still managed to emerge as a consensus view of the WG. And ultimately of the RIPE community.
Hi Jim, I also think that your argument: 'one person can not block' is valid. However, I am not alone. I remember people from Norvege, Germany, Ukraine, etc, sharing the concerns or even expressing better than I did. Perhaps also you! Fredy Kuenzler - How More Specifics increase your transit bill (and ways to avoid it)this was a nice talk on Tuesday's plenary, explaining how and why to keep the routing table simpler and smaller - in a little bit different context. Unfortunately very few "PI+1 activists" attended.... Is the old concensus that we should listen to the others still valid? You do, I know, but what about these "PI+1 activists"? Best, Géza On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2011, at 14:42, Peter Koch wrote:
If it's all about 'one person cannot block' then tell me, how many
would it need?
The same number as it needs in the dnsop WG you chair at IETF Peter. :-)
We both know this is not decided by absolute numbers Peter. The Chair(s) of the relevant WG exercise their best judgement on the position of the WG as a whole. [That's why they get the big bucks. :-)] If they believe there's consensus in the WG, that's the decision. They could decide that one lone voice knows better than the rest of the WG => further discussion or refinement of the proposal is needed. That will depend on the specific circumstances and the nature of that (isolated?) objection.
Note too that the earlier discussion was sparked by the suggestion that there could be no consensus on 2011-02 unless Geza said this was OK. We both know that this is not how RIPE's consensus decision-making process works.
You might recall how the DNS WG arrived at a consensus response to the DoC proposal for getting the DNS root signed a few years ago and who made the judgement on whether a consensus had been reached. Some people were unhappy or uncomfortable with aspects of that response yet it still managed to emerge as a consensus view of the WG. And ultimately of the RIPE community.
(BTW, thsi is not a RIPE matter, however, a global one)
On 10 Dec 2011, at 08:13, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
However, I am not alone. I remember people from Norvege, Germany, Ukraine, etc, sharing the concerns or even expressing better than I did.
Yes, though they seem to be a lot quieter now.
Perhaps also you!
Perhaps. :-) FWIW I am uncomfortable with this proposal, but not enough to oppose the general consensus view. Provided the NCC monitor the situation well, that should give us plenty of warning and time to react if Bad Things start to happen. Famous last words... We should remember that policies do not have to be perfect or live forever. They can always be changed or killed later. Whenever circumstances change, so should our policies. It may well be better to go with a less than perfect policy today (so stuff can get done) than hope the perfect policy might emerge tomorrow (and nothing gets done until that happens). ie First develop something that's "good enough" and then amend it in light of actual experience.
what about these "PI+1 activists"?
This is always a problem. One way or another we're all proponents of free beer. [Economists call things like free beer "externalities": you push your costs and hassles elsewhere so somebody else pays for them.] We just have to live with this. Externalities are inherent to almost every system, not just RIPE policy making.
Hi,
Gert Doering wrote:
- but the *working group* has the last word on any policy decision, so we call for two weeks of "Last Call" on this decision
As much as I like to see this policy change implemented and as much as I disagree with Geza, technically if someone is opposing (and I think all would agree that it was not trolling), then that is technically not an consensus.
However, I'd like to hear Gezas opinion on wether rough consensus has been reached and would subscribe to his view on that.
the PDP calls for rough consensus, not for unanimous consensus. There's a difference, check Randy's link or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus#Near-unanimous_consensus -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect
On 9 Dec 2011, at 00:36, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg wrote:
As much as I like to see this policy change implemented and as much as I disagree with Geza, technically if someone is opposing (and I think all would agree that it was not trolling), then that is technically not an consensus.
No. You're describing unanimity: where everyone agrees or at least nobody objects. Consensus is when there's a lack of sustained, reasonable objection. That's the usual working definition used in most consensus-driven organisations, which includes RIPE. We can have consensus in RIPE without having unanimity. A single voice of complaint cannot be allowed to mean we can't declare consensus. Nobody at RIPE can have a veto on policy making. If they did, that would be utterly unworkable. IMO, the concerns Geza raised -- and has since withdrawn? -- fail to pass the test of sustained, reasonable objection. Nobody else seemed to support his position. Incidentally, consensus in a WG is whatever its chairs decide is consensus. That's why they're there. :-) And why there are further steps in the PDP to check that decision. If a small number object to a proposal that otherwise has overwhelming support, the WG chairs can quite reasonably declare consensus on that proposal.
Jim Reid schrieb am 09.12.2011 10:31:
Incidentally, consensus in a WG is whatever its chairs decide is consensus. That's why they're there. :-) And why there are further steps in the PDP to check that decision. If a small number object to a proposal that otherwise has overwhelming support, the WG chairs can quite reasonably declare consensus on that proposal. I totally support that!!! :-)
You may never ever get 100.0% agreement for /any/ decision. Nevertheless, a decision has to be made eventually. That's one big problem in democracy and there's no solution to that. Thomas
On 8 December 2011 21:12, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
If you, the WG, decides that we do not have consensus, the policy proposal goes back to "discussion phase", and the proposer will need to work with those people that spoke up against the proposal to integrate their ideas, and come up with a new version of the policy proposal that might then reach consensus.
I don't like the policy as I think its a bad idea (I'd rather IPv4 PI required multihoming if you want to make PI more 'equal'), but thats not the question on the slab... It seems that the majority believe the proposal has merit, that the majority of those that are against the proposal are actually concerned about the unintended consequences (table growth) rather than the policy itself. We have discussed alternatives that would 'brake' the table growth as part of the change but many have been written off as unworkable (and possibly a poor policy development idea) so it seems to me that we are in fact at a consensus *but* that the NCC should be tasked with monitoring impact and reporting at a fixed point in the future. J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
Hi James,
*but* that the NCC should be tasked with monitoring impact and reporting at a fixed point in the future.
We (as working group chairs) will take care of this. This is definitely something that needs to be monitored. We will (or let the NCC) report at least at every RIPE meeting. Met vriendelijke groet, Sander Steffann
I agree on consensus being there on this item. Jasper -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 10:13 PM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02 Dear AP WG, 2011-02 has been a difficult one, and you have noticed the lack of visible progress. So let us explain, and propose a way forward. <snip> Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:12:34PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
So the AP WG chairs have decided (after long discussion) that we do have rough consensus on this policy proposal, and the remaining objections will be ignored.
I would certainly hope that these objections will not be ignored but considered addressed. The important difference being that they have been taken seriously based on their own merits and found to be outweighed by the counter arguments (and/or there was no way to compromise). That's a judgement to be made and you've made it. In this case let me say, one could also reasonably come to a different conclusion. -Peter
Hi, On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 03:28:56PM +0100, Peter Koch wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:12:34PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
So the AP WG chairs have decided (after long discussion) that we do have rough consensus on this policy proposal, and the remaining objections will be ignored.
I would certainly hope that these objections will not be ignored but considered addressed.
Yes. "For judging consensus, they will not be considered further", but of course (Sander already said so) we will take Geza and Mikael's concerns into account, and *will* monitor the routing table and assignment numbers. So this was a somewhat poor choice of words.
The important difference being that they have been taken seriously based on their own merits and found to be outweighed by the counter arguments (and/or there was no way to compromise). That's a judgement to be made and you've made it.
There was no way to compromise within the given policy text, so that's the decision we've taken. Yes. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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
I would certainly hope that these objections will not be ignored but considered addressed.
the concerns (which careful reading of the thread would show that i shared with geza) were not 'addressed' in the sense of overcome. we were just a teenie minority. and i, for one, did not consider it a battle worth being the objector. i agree with the chairs that rough consensus was reached. if the chickens come home to roost on this one, i'll laugh a little and sigh a lot. randy
Hello, I am glad to see that I am not alone. However, I am still worried that several people voted for a free beer. OK, free beer is nice if somebody is ready to pay it ;-(), but this case is a different one. The problem is that the limits of the technology can not be changed by voting and concensus declaration. AND the whole policy addresses global issues. The policy proposal was a very bad message for other regions. Liberty to pollut (in this case: the global routing table) is not a liberty for me. Thanks, Géza On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I would certainly hope that these objections will not be ignored but considered addressed.
the concerns (which careful reading of the thread would show that i shared with geza) were not 'addressed' in the sense of overcome.
randy
I am still worried that several people voted for a free beer.
geza, at my age i might be worried, but i am certainly not surprised. given a sufficiently large population, in this case i suspect three is large, someone will always vote for free beer. randy
In 2011-02, we have the case of "rough consensus with objections": Finally :)
I agree on the rough consensus thing, and I am glad it finally happened. regards, Dan -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de
On 12/10/11 7:33 AM, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
Liberty to pollut (in this case: the global routing table) is not a liberty for me.
maybe that would be real incentive to replace bgp with something that is more efficient and scales better. Jan
Liberty to pollut (in this case: the global routing table) is not a liberty for me.
maybe that would be real incentive to replace bgp with something that is more efficient and scales better.
The ultimate address policy dream: giving out addresses without having to worry about the routing table ;-) Met vriendelijke groet, Sander Steffann
On 11/12/2011 14:25, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
maybe that would be real incentive to replace bgp with something that is more efficient and scales better.
bgp isn't the problem here. In fact, BGP is doing just fine: it scales linearly according the number of prefixes, and is staying well behind moore's law, as you can run bgp calculation engines on commodity CPU. The problem we face is dealing with lookup engines which can process ever increasing numbers of prefixes at ever faster rates. Nick
Hi Nick, On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
On 11/12/2011 14:25, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
maybe that would be real incentive to replace bgp with something that is more efficient and scales better.
bgp isn't the problem here. In fact, BGP is doing just fine: it scales linearly according the number of prefixes, and is staying well behind moore's law, as you can run bgp calculation engines on commodity CPU.
The problem we face is dealing with lookup engines which can process ever increasing numbers of prefixes at ever faster rates.
Nick
OK, simplification might help, however, may I try to add more details?
1, It would be better not to forget the limits of the equipments installed in the current network (not negligabe percentage of the installed equipments with 500k IPv4 prefix capability only.). 2, As far as I know network convergence still needs several 10s of seconds in real life, even with faster CPU in the installed equipments. 3, YES: updating and accessing the FIB stored in the memory of line cards need time, and the time needed is hard to reduce. (No hope in "Moore low"). Plus: a 40GE, or a 100GE card needs even more complicated and costly arrangements of memory banks allowing timely access of FIB at line speed. Anyhow, do we agree that forward looking statements about the technology of the future and the policy that we accept today are two different issues? Do we agree that a clear, understandable limitation of the bad effects of the PI address space would be helpfull, and reduce the conflict between PI-funs and "clean-forwarding-table" networkers? I suggested a mesure: OK. let's allow PI allocations in exceptional cases until the number of PI allocations is below of the number of the LIR in the RIPE regions. (Other regions might accept the same, therefore it is easy to extend this policy limitaton at global level, and keeping the "pollution" low, globally). OR, do you want PI allocation for every village in certain continents? Best, Géza
On 11/12/2011 20:50, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
1, It would be better not to forget the limits of the equipments installed in the current network (not negligabe percentage of the installed equipments with 500k IPv4 prefix capability only.).
Routers with RE space for only 500k prefixes will soon be defunct if they aren't already. It's been pretty easy to project ipv4 RIB growth over the last several years. Take a look at: http://bgp.potaroo.net/bgprpts/bgp-active.png If you draw a straight line on the basis of any period after 2004, you'll see that we'll hit 500k prefixes some time in 2013. If you're using ipv6 or mpls or have a large IGP or have a l3vpn network, you're probably outside the bounds of 500k prefix routers. So I'm not really feeling very sympathetic to someone who's attempting to run a full DFZ on a 500k prefix box: either they haven't done their projections properly (in which case they need to consider a different career), or else they bought the box years ago, and it's been depreciated off their books. If you're using equipment that you many years ago, you shouldn't expect it to last forever, particularly if it has hard resource limits - e.g. forwarding table size. This is simply how hardware forwarding engines work. We're no longer able to run anything more than tiny networks on 7200s and J series boxes. It just doesn't work that way any more, and hasn't worked like that for years.
2, As far as I know network convergence still needs several 10s of seconds in real life, even with faster CPU in the installed equipments.
More importantly, Moore's law has ensured that CPU speeds have increased faster than the DFZ BGP table has grown over the last number of years. BGP and routing churn are not the problem here.
Do we agree that a clear, understandable limitation of the bad effects of the PI address space would be helpfull, and reduce the conflict between PI-funs and "clean-forwarding-table" networkers?
We're all adults and we all understand the implications of DFZ table growth.
I suggested a mesure: OK. let's allow PI allocations in exceptional cases until the number of PI allocations is below of the number of the LIR in the RIPE regions. (Other regions might accept the same, therefore it is easy to extend this policy limitaton at global level, and keeping the "pollution" low, globally).
I'm not in favour of the idea of pulling a figure out of thin air and saying that we shouldn't allow any more ipv6 PI assignments than this. The number of LIRs in the RIPE region is no more relevant to a good quality PI assignment policy than any other randomly chosen number.
OR, do you want PI allocation for every village in certain continents?
Let's not create a straw man argument. IPv4 didn't cause the sky to fall, and IPv6 won't cause it to fall either. If IPv6 PI starts showing signs of causing problems over the next couple of years, then we can change the policy. Nick
Hello Nick, I see that we still disagree on many points. On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
On 11/12/2011 20:50, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
1, It would be better not to forget the limits of the equipments installed in the current network (not negligabe percentage of the installed equipments with 500k IPv4 prefix capability only.).
Routers with RE space for only 500k prefixes will soon be defunct if they aren't already. It's been pretty easy to project ipv4 RIB growth over the last several years. Take a look at:
http://bgp.potaroo.net/bgprpts/bgp-active.png
If you draw a straight line on the basis of any period after 2004, you'll see that we'll hit 500k prefixes some time in 2013. If you're using ipv6 or mpls or have a large IGP or have a l3vpn network, you're probably outside the bounds of 500k prefix routers.
The same trends coud not apply after the IPv4 address space run-out. An earlier (IPv4->IPv6) transition, or cleaning the announcements would stop the growth and even reduce the table. And not only the 500K limit could be reached soon if the size of the routing table is not considered important while deciding about policy, however, the 1000K limit as well. What affects a much larger chunk of the installed equipments.
2, As far as I know network convergence still needs several 10s of seconds in real life, even with faster CPU in the installed equipments.
More importantly, Moore's law has ensured that CPU speeds have increased faster than the DFZ BGP table has grown over the last number of years. BGP and routing churn are not the problem here.
I have still quastion marks: if a severe earthquake cuts an optical cable under the ocean how much time needed for the global routing to converge? Increasing the BGP table is easy.... changing the CPUs is theorically possible, but who should pay for it?
Do we agree that a clear, understandable limitation of the bad effects of the PI address space would be helpfull, and reduce the conflict between PI-funs and "clean-forwarding-table" networkers?
We're all adults and we all understand the implications of DFZ table growth.
I suggested a mesure: OK. let's allow PI allocations in exceptional cases until the number of PI allocations is below of the number of the LIR in the RIPE regions. (Other regions might accept the same, therefore it is easy to extend this policy limitaton at global level, and keeping the "pollution" low, globally).
I'm not in favour of the idea of pulling a figure out of thin air and saying that we shouldn't allow any more ipv6 PI assignments than this. The number of LIRs in the RIPE region is no more relevant to a good quality PI assignment policy than any other randomly chosen number.
I agree that using the "number of LIRs in the region" as a unit might sound strange. BUT there are arguments in favour it: even politician might understand this mesure. Anyhow, the RIPE NCC should be financed and controlled by the LIRs, and not by the PI address space holders.
OR, do you want PI allocation for every village in certain continents?
Let's not create a straw man argument. IPv4 didn't cause the sky to fall, and IPv6 won't cause it to fall either. If IPv6 PI starts showing signs of causing problems over the next couple of years, then we can change the policy.
PI allocation MUST be stopped earlier then it cause more problems. There is no way to foresee the exact behaviour of address requestors: if PI requests became a fashion you might expect several tens of thousands of PI address block allocated within a year... and you wont be able to stop this within the framework of the current proposal.
Nick
Géza
Hi Geza, ➢ I see that we still disagree on many points. I see your comments and I understand your concern, however as stated in the presentation on the policy, this is not a technical discussion as customers currently are registering for LIR membership to avoid the multi-homing requirement for PI v6. Having (end-)customers register for a LIR membership to avoid the multi-homing requirement or having v6 PI without the multi-homing requirement doesn't make a technical difference imho. I’ve had several customers already take the LIR route in order to avoid the multi-homing requirement. They ‘bought’ themselves into the community by becoming a LIR and suddenly nobody cares anymore if they are multi-homed or not and have their own v6 prefix. Other customers have stopped deployment of v6 altogether. As if there is still time to wait with the implementation of v6. None of us can look into the future, however if we see how the v6 PI uptake is in other regions with a similar policy in place, the worst case scenario isn’t going to be the reality. And both the community and the RIPE NCC will keep a close watch on growth of the number of prefixes. Regards, Erik Bais Co-author of 2011-02
On 12/12/2011 07:38, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
I see that we still disagree on many points.
Yes. The sensible thing to do when you cannot agree with someone is to agree to disagree. Nick
On 12/12/11 12:55 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
So I'm not really feeling very sympathetic to someone who's attempting to run a full DFZ on a 500k prefix box: either they haven't done their projections properly (in which case they need to consider a different career), or else they bought the box years ago, and it's been depreciated off their books. If you're using equipment that you many years ago, you shouldn't expect it to last forever, particularly if it has hard resource limits - e.g. forwarding table size.
This is simply how hardware forwarding engines work. We're no longer able to run anything more than tiny networks on 7200s and J series boxes. It just doesn't work that way any more, and hasn't worked like that for years.
I can see a picture of a man in an old carriage, complaining about building the highways (that a carriage simply cannot use). So you are effectively saying, that we are constraining the IPv6 address distribution because of "man in a carriage"? Jan
So you are effectively saying, that we are constraining the IPv6 address distribution because of "man in a carriage"?
horseshit he is saying that we have long experience of what causes routing table bloat and that we are about to repeat a mistake we made once already. randy
On 12/12/11 10:03 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
So you are effectively saying, that we are constraining the IPv6 address distribution because of "man in a carriage"?
horseshit
he is saying that we have long experience of what causes routing table bloat and that we are about to repeat a mistake we made once already.
I agree, that not distributing the IPv6 space can prevent routing table bloat, but is this really the right way? can't we deal with that in any other way other than delaying IPv6 adoption? Cheers, Jan
I agree, that not distributing the IPv6 space can prevent routing table bloat, but is this really the right way?
can't we deal with that in any other way other than delaying IPv6 adoption?
if you think this is delaying ipv6 adoption then you are utterly blind. for my opinion on what delayed ipv6 adoption see <https://archive.psg.com/111116.intarea-vision.pdf> randy
On 12/12/11 10:49 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
if you think this is delaying ipv6 adoption then you are utterly blind.
for my opinion on what delayed ipv6 adoption see
this seems very familiar and I agree (as you might suspect) :) But "constraining the distribution of IPv6 resources" is not helping either... As you once said "give me the tool to deal with idiots that deaggregate" - this might be also the case in IPv6 and PI without multihoming will not be the only reason. Cheers, Jan
On 12/12/2011 09:03, Randy Bush wrote:
he is saying that we have long experience of what causes routing table bloat and that we are about to repeat a mistake we made once already.
that's exactly what I'm saying, except for the context in which I say it: we need to repeat the mistake of PI for ipv6 because there are no good alternatives for small-site v6 multihoming, and while historical context has shown us that routing bloat is a problem, it's a problem which was and remains manageable for at least v4 I still maintain my position on 2011-02 that removing the multihoming requirement is not a good idea because we no longer have the {address counting | multihoming} limiters which act as natural barriers in the case of ipv4 PI assignments. Nick
I agree that rough consensus has been established. Thomas Gert Doering schrieb am 08.12.2011 22:12:
So the AP WG chairs have decided (after long discussion) that we do have rough consensus on this policy proposal, and the remaining objections will be ignored.
On 08-12-11 22:12, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
In 2011-02, we have the case of "rough consensus with objections":
We have a number of people who spoke up in favour of the proposal, both during the discussion/review phases and during Last Call. A few persons had serious doubts about routing table growth and about PI in general, but still spoke in favour of the proposal, or abstained.
<all hats off, as usual> Gert, I fail to see how my comment from June 29th, quoted below, is part of your summary. Quote: While I do sympathise with the rationale behind the proposal, doing it this way strikes me as having an awful lot of (unintended?) side effects. I personally don't have a better suggestion to achieve resolution of the problem that this proposal aims to fix, but at the same time I'm unconvinced that everybody's who's been supporting the proposal has been doing so for the problem this policy aims to fix, and not one of its (again, unintended?) side effects. End quote. If we're going to have a meta-discussion about whether consensus has been reached, I think we should be clear on what the proposal intends to fix first. Agreeing with the rationale behind a proposal doesn't imply I agree with the text of the proposal as-is. Best, Remco This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
Hi, On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:44:11AM +0000, Remco Van Mook wrote:
In 2011-02, we have the case of "rough consensus with objections":
We have a number of people who spoke up in favour of the proposal, both during the discussion/review phases and during Last Call. A few persons had serious doubts about routing table growth and about PI in general, but still spoke in favour of the proposal, or abstained.
I fail to see how my comment from June 29th, quoted below, is part of your summary.
Quote: While I do sympathise with the rationale behind the proposal, doing it this way strikes me as having an awful lot of (unintended?) side effects. I personally don't have a better suggestion to achieve resolution of the problem that this proposal aims to fix, but at the same time I'm unconvinced that everybody's who's been supporting the proposal has been doing so for the problem this policy aims to fix, and not one of its (again, unintended?) side effects. End quote.
I took that as an abstention. You voice doubts on the proposal and some doubts about the motivation of other supporters, while stating some support for the rationale - but I can't read a clear "I support the proposal" or "I do not support the proposal" here.
If we're going to have a meta-discussion about whether consensus has been reached, I think we should be clear on what the proposal intends to fix first.
Now that would have been a nice statement in "Last Call" - where you didn't say anything, so we didn't see any opposition from you when trying to assess consensus. Now we're *past* the "Concluding Phase" from the PDP, and the only relevant question now is "has the PDP process been correctly followed, and (rough) consensus been achieved, or not". It's not unusual for people to voice somewhat-unspecific doubts about a proposal in one of the earlier phases of the PDP, but still go forward with the proposal, especially if they (as you added) have no better suggestions. Sometimes they clearly voice this (as Mikael did), sometimes we have to decide by "there is no sustained opposition in Last Call" that, well, there is no sustained opposition. But anyway - as I said: this has been a difficult one. If you think your concerns haven't been given enough weight, and we haven't achieved "rough consensus" as per the PDP, please say so. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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 12-12-11 13:11, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
But anyway - as I said: this has been a difficult one. If you think your concerns haven't been given enough weight, and we haven't achieved "rough consensus" as per the PDP, please say so.
<all hats off, once more> Alright I'll bite. I don't think "rough consensus" has been achieved in this case and I think we can do the community a huge favor if the proposal is taken back to the drawing board. As said before, I'm sure that once we agree on what problem we're going to fix, it will be a lot easier to get a policy text in place that will meet consensus. Remco This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
Hi Remco,
Alright I'll bite. I don't think "rough consensus" has been achieved in this case and I think we can do the community a huge favor if the proposal is taken back to the drawing board. As said before, I'm sure that once we agree on what problem we're going to fix, it will be a lot easier to get a policy text in place that will meet consensus.
The problem with the policy text is that the only textual change in the policy is: the removal of the multi-homed requirement for PI v6. The intention of the policy was (/ is) to bring the requirements for PI v4 and v6 more in line, without changing anything else that you still require or are not allowed to do when you request PI for v6. The change in the policy will allow people who don't WANT to become a LIR (or can't for legal reasons) or are not planning for multi-homing yet, the opportunity to start implementing v6 on independent resources if required. Currently the way around the current PI v6 multi-home requirement is: A) sign-up as a LIR and nobody asks you if you are planning to multi-home your v6 PA /32. Or B) don't implement v6 yet. (As if there is time to wait some more on delaying your v6 implementation.) Not everybody want to (or can) become a LIR for their own reasons, while they still have very valid points of requiring PI space on all other aspects and I speak from my own experience with some customers, most of the PI customers should be banned from anything that has a console attached to it as most of them have absolutely no clue how to manage a BGP setup. To sum things up, there is an escape that is already being used for those that can afford it and don't want to deal with the hostmasters questions on multi-homing requirements. (They buy their way into the community and we somehow we don't care anymore) That means that this is not a technical discussion imho, but a financial decision if we allow v6 without multi-homing. Current status as I see it: (Expensive) LIR membership = v6 without multihoming Or cheap PI = jump through hoops and required to implement multi-homing. This policy change will level the requirements to be similar (on the topic of multi-homing) as for v4 PI and for new LIR's. Regards, Erik Bais
Hi guys,
Alright I'll bite. I don't think "rough consensus" has been achieved in this case and I think we can do the community a huge favor if the proposal is taken back to the drawing board. As said before, I'm sure that once we agree on what problem we're going to fix, it will be a lot easier to get a policy text in place that will meet consensus.
The problem with the policy text is that the only textual change in the policy is: the removal of the multi-homed requirement for PI v6. The intention of the policy was (/ is) to bring the requirements for PI v4 and v6 more in line, without changing anything else that you still require or are not allowed to do when you request PI for v6.
We are drifting off topic here. Please don't start discussing the *content* of the proposal. We finished the PDP phases where that was appropriate. At this point in the process we (as chairs) are only concerned if the outcome of those discussions, although not unanimous, can be called consensus. Thanks, Sander
Hi The two weeks have passed, but if it is still open I would like to add my vote to the statement that we have a rough consensus. What and more importantly for my non-mulithoming, IPv4 PI space holding and IPv6 PI space wishing customers, when is the next step? Kind Regards Nina Bargisen , TDC On 16.12.2011 12:45:08 +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi guys,
Alright I'll bite. I don't think "rough consensus" has been achieved in this case and I think we can do the community a huge favor if the proposal is taken back to the drawing board. As said before, I'm sure that once we agree on what problem we're going to fix, it will be a lot easier to get a policy text in place that will meet consensus.
The problem with the policy text is that the only textual change in the policy is: the removal of the multi-homed requirement for PI v6. The intention of the policy was (/ is) to bring the requirements for PI v4 and v6 more in line, without changing anything else that you still require or are not allowed to do when you request PI for v6.
We are drifting off topic here. Please don't start discussing the *content* of the proposal. We finished the PDP phases where that was appropriate. At this point in the process we (as chairs) are only concerned if the outcome of those discussions, although not unanimous, can be called consensus.
Thanks, Sander
Dear AP WG, On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:12:34PM +0100, I wrote:
- but the *WG* has the last word on any policy decision, so we call for two weeks of "Last Call" on this decision
Procedure-wise, this is not about the *content* of the proposal now, and it's not useful to repeat the discussion about routing table growth etc. now - we've heard all arguments. What we need to decide now is whether the voices from the community so far form "rough consensus" on the proposal, or not.
Looking at all the messages that have been posted in the discussions following my e-mails, I categorize your feedback as follows: - explicit statements of "we have consensus": (Scott Leibrand, Sascha Lenz, Florian Fuessl, James Blessing, Jasper Jans, Randy Bush, Dan Luedtke, Thomas Schallar, Sascha Luck, [Nina Bargisen]) - statements of "we do not have consensus" (Immo Wehrenberg, on the assumption that consensus has to be unanimous Remco Van Mook) - side-discussions about "what is consensus" (Randy Bush, Immo, Nick Hilliard, Jim Reid, Peter Koch, Turchanyi Geza, Sascha Lenz, Thomas Schallar, Randy Bush) - comments about the content of the proposal, and/or routing technology, and not answering the question asked (Lutz Donnerhacke, Turchanyi Geza, Jan Zorz, Sander Steffann, Nick Hilliard, Turchanyi Geza, Erik Bais, Randy Bush, Vladislav Potapov, Hendrik Voelker, Masataka Ohta, Remco Van Mook) Given that only two voices explicitely said "we have no consensus", and quite a number of people backed the decision by the AP WG chairs to declare consensus, we stick to our decision. What happens next: - the proposal goes back to the Working Group Chairs collective for the final decision (as per PDP, ripe-500, 2.4 / 3rd paragraph) - if they agree on that, the proposal will become policy If you strongly believe that process has not been followed and there was no consensus, the RIPE PDP (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-500) has an appeals procedure (Appendix A, 3.3), in which case the RIPE chair will have the last word). Gert Doering -- APWG Chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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
Gert wrote:
Looking at all the messages that have been posted in the discussions following my e-mails, I categorize your feedback as follows: [...] - statements of "we do not have consensus" (Immo Wehrenberg, on the assumption that consensus has to be unanimous Remco Van Mook)
I'm afraid I have to correct you here. I said that I'm not sure wether we have consensous or not and i would follow Gezas opinion on that. Since Geza has not objected that consensous is reached, I assume that we have consensous now. Just a clarification, sorry that I did not make this clear in the first place. Immo
Hi Immo, On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 02:35:09PM +0100, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg wrote:
Gert wrote:
Looking at all the messages that have been posted in the discussions following my e-mails, I categorize your feedback as follows: [...] - statements of "we do not have consensus" (Immo Wehrenberg, on the assumption that consensus has to be unanimous Remco Van Mook)
I'm afraid I have to correct you here. I said that I'm not sure wether we have consensous or not and i would follow Gezas opinion on that. Since Geza has not objected that consensous is reached, I assume that we have consensous now.
Just a clarification, sorry that I did not make this clear in the first place.
Thanks for the clarification. This wasn't fully clear to me - now it is :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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
Hello, I am sorry, I should say that some people definitely misinterpreted my words. And probably not only mines I definitely declared that I still think that no concensus was reached. I am not sure that I want to spend time to fill a formal appeal, however, may be. Thanks for your considerations, Géza On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg <immo.ripe@be.free.de
wrote:
Gert wrote:
Looking at all the messages that have been posted in the discussions following my e-mails, I categorize your feedback as follows: [...] - statements of "we do not have consensus" (Immo Wehrenberg, on the assumption that consensus has to be unanimous Remco Van Mook)
I'm afraid I have to correct you here. I said that I'm not sure wether we have consensous or not and i would follow Gezas opinion on that. Since Geza has not objected that consensous is reached, I assume that we have consensous now.
Just a clarification, sorry that I did not make this clear in the first place.
Immo
Hi, On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 04:52:41PM +0100, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
I definitely declared that I still think that no concensus was reached.
Please re-read the mails you have sent. We needed something very clear, like "no, we do not have consensus" or "yes, this is good enough for (rough) consensus" here. You made very clear that you do not like the proposal, but that does not automatically make it a statement of non-consensus - there was one e-mail which very clearly stated: "I don't like the policy as I think its a bad idea [...], but [...] so it seems that we are in fact at a consensus *but* [...]" so "not liking the proposal but still thinking the WG has reached rough consensus on it" is quite possible. Since your mails didn't contain clear statements of consensus or not, they have not been counted as either. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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
Hello Gert, may I quote myself? fromTurchanyi Geza turchanyi.geza@gmail.com toaddress-policy-wg@ripe.net ccPeter Koch <pk@denic.de>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> dateSat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:33 AMsubjectRe: [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02mailed-bygmail.com hide details 12/10/11 Hello, I am glad to see that I am not alone. However, I am still worried that several people voted for a free beer. OK, free beer is nice if somebody is ready to pay it ;-(), but this case is a different one. The problem is that the limits of the technology can not be changed by voting and concensus declaration. AND the whole policy addresses global issues. The policy proposal was a very bad message for other regions. Liberty to pollut (in this case: the global routing table) is not a liberty for me. Thanks, Géza On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I would certainly hope that these objections will not be ignored but considered addressed.
the concerns (which careful reading of the thread would show that i shared with geza) were not 'addressed' in the sense of overcome.
randy
These were very clear messages, I think. Thanks, Géza On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 04:52:41PM +0100, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
I definitely declared that I still think that no concensus was reached.
Please re-read the mails you have sent.
We needed something very clear, like "no, we do not have consensus" or "yes, this is good enough for (rough) consensus" here.
You made very clear that you do not like the proposal, but that does not automatically make it a statement of non-consensus - there was one e-mail which very clearly stated:
"I don't like the policy as I think its a bad idea [...], but [...] so it seems that we are in fact at a consensus *but* [...]"
so "not liking the proposal but still thinking the WG has reached rough consensus on it" is quite possible.
Since your mails didn't contain clear statements of consensus or not, they have not been counted as either.
Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
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
participants (21)
-
Dan Luedtke -
DI. Thomas Schallar -
Erik Bais -
Florian Fuessl -
Gert Doering -
Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg -
Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg -
James Blessing -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Jasper Jans -
Jim Reid -
Lutz Donnerhacke -
Nick Hilliard -
Nina Hjorth Bargisen -
Peter Koch -
Randy Bush -
Remco Van Mook -
Sander Steffann -
Sascha Lenz -
Scott Leibrand -
Turchanyi Geza