IPv6 PI policy implemented
Dear Colleagues, Please note that AfriNC has implemented the following policy: "IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites" http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200701.htm We have consequently as of today started making /48 PI assignments from the following block: 2001:43f8::/29 You may need to adjust any filters in place accordingly. For more information, please see: http://www.afrinic.net/Registration/afsup-ipv6pi-assignments.htm Regards, Ernest AfriNIC
I'm wondering. ARIN and AfriNIC assign PI space for end-sites. They both do /48 (ARIN also does a /48 as I remember correctly). Isn't the discussion in the RIPE area not getting a bit too long and taken over by events. As an example, NATO can also just as easily apply for space from ARIN (although RIPE covers more of NATO's area of operation as it seems). Something similar would be true for many International customers interested in PI. Just wondering... Shouldn't we just give up our strong feelings and face the fact that other bits of the world have already acted, just do it and coordinate a global route filter policy etc so that things actually work? Marc van Selm On Thursday 12 July 2007 15:24, Ernest Byaruhanga (AfriNIC) wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Please note that AfriNC has implemented the following policy:
"IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites" http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200701.htm
We have consequently as of today started making /48 PI assignments from the following block:
2001:43f8::/29
You may need to adjust any filters in place accordingly.
For more information, please see:
http://www.afrinic.net/Registration/afsup-ipv6pi-assignments.htm
Regards,
Ernest AfriNIC
-- -- This mail is personal -- All statements in this mail are made from my own personal perspective and do not necessarily reflect my employer's opinions or policies.
As an example, NATO can also just as easily apply for space from ARIN
do you think nato wants a /48? they want a /32 and will then chop it up and pollute the routing table. randy
On Thursday 19 July 2007 08:40, Randy Bush wrote:
As an example, NATO can also just as easily apply for space from ARIN
do you think nato wants a /48? they want a /32 and will then chop it up and pollute the routing table.
Yes I guess they would and I doubt that NATO would go that way (note I'm not speaking for NATO today but on personal title here). The LIR way is probably the way to go. But on the other hand, how many sub-networks does NATO have? (A question that I won't answer but I guess one can assume that no potential PI customer has more than 65536 subnets (etc) today.) On Thursday 19 July 2007 09:04, Sascha Lenz wrote:
yes, "we" should do that, please send some troops to repacify the enemy dorkheads, thank you
That approach is just what I question. Not to be cinical but the point I'm making is: If the RIPE region is against PI but PI is available from other sources without too much hassle. Do we expect that those that want it will not go for PI just because RIPE NCC does not offer it? Personally, if I'm internationally oriented, I'd go to ARIN or AfriNIC (depending where I have offices) and just get what I want. This makes that the RIPE community decides on PI less relevant. My point is, aren't we running the risk of being bypassed left and right just because we don't like it? If we do aren't we running the risk that being bypassed means that we can't influence it because other parts of the world already have decided for us. I'm not trying to defend PI because I like it (I think it is unavoidable but that's not why I write this). I'm trying to say that the world seems to be moving on while we are discussing. IPv6 is a global commodity that can be procured anywhere for this scale of user. So if we don't provide it people buy it from our neighbor and we still have the "enemy" on the net without the posibility to have a say in it. Best regards, Marc PS can we keep the discussion a bit professional and leave words like the "enemy dorkheads" out of this? -- Marc van Selm NATO C3 Agency CIS Division E-mail: marc.van.selm@nc3a.nato.int (PGP capable)
That approach is just what I question. Not to be cinical but the point I'm making is: If the RIPE region is against PI but PI is available from other sources without too much hassle.
the lowest common denominator argument leads to heat death of universe. alcoholics seek friends who are further down than they are so they don't see how far down they have gone. i suggest coming up with a good policy for ripe region, not seeing how low we can all go. randy
I guess in the case of NATO the new modifications to the existing policy, that removes the 200 customers and allows organizations being "ISPs" internally to the organization, is the right now for the NATO case. I recall indeed someone from NATO indicated that to me some months ago. Regards, Jordi
De: Marc van Selm <marc.van.selm@nc3a.nato.int> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Fecha: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:44:40 +0200 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI policy implemented
On Thursday 19 July 2007 08:40, Randy Bush wrote:
As an example, NATO can also just as easily apply for space from ARIN
do you think nato wants a /48? they want a /32 and will then chop it up and pollute the routing table.
Yes I guess they would and I doubt that NATO would go that way (note I'm not speaking for NATO today but on personal title here). The LIR way is probably the way to go. But on the other hand, how many sub-networks does NATO have? (A question that I won't answer but I guess one can assume that no potential PI customer has more than 65536 subnets (etc) today.)
On Thursday 19 July 2007 09:04, Sascha Lenz wrote:
yes, "we" should do that, please send some troops to repacify the enemy dorkheads, thank you
That approach is just what I question. Not to be cinical but the point I'm making is: If the RIPE region is against PI but PI is available from other sources without too much hassle. Do we expect that those that want it will not go for PI just because RIPE NCC does not offer it? Personally, if I'm internationally oriented, I'd go to ARIN or AfriNIC (depending where I have offices) and just get what I want. This makes that the RIPE community decides on PI less relevant. My point is, aren't we running the risk of being bypassed left and right just because we don't like it? If we do aren't we running the risk that being bypassed means that we can't influence it because other parts of the world already have decided for us.
I'm not trying to defend PI because I like it (I think it is unavoidable but that's not why I write this). I'm trying to say that the world seems to be moving on while we are discussing. IPv6 is a global commodity that can be procured anywhere for this scale of user. So if we don't provide it people buy it from our neighbor and we still have the "enemy" on the net without the posibility to have a say in it.
Best regards, Marc
PS can we keep the discussion a bit professional and leave words like the "enemy dorkheads" out of this? -- Marc van Selm NATO C3 Agency CIS Division E-mail: marc.van.selm@nc3a.nato.int (PGP capable)
********************************************** 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.
On Thursday 19 July 2007 11:08, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I guess in the case of NATO the new modifications to the existing policy, that removes the 200 customers and allows organizations being "ISPs" internally to the organization, is the right now for the NATO case. I recall indeed someone from NATO indicated that to me some months ago.
Regards, Jordi
Yes Jordi, I'm Guilty as charged (I was that someone. I'm involved in IPv6 transition planning for NATO from a network architectural perspective.)! Yes I've talking about the "200 customer rule" before. It is all in the definition of a customer. To summarise, NATO has a service provisioning agency which could become a LIR. It serves to NATO Agencies and NATO operations. 200 customers requires creativity in defining what a customer is but it can be done. And I've tested that concept with Leo Vegoda at the time by submitting a proforma initial allocation request. Leo felt happy enough about it at the time. So that gave me a warm feeling that this bit of the IPv6 transition plan will fly (or can be made to fly). Indeed NATO's service provisioning agency would fit best into a LIR role but it could also work with PI space if it was provisioned in a *useful* way. (I won't go into the details of the NATO networks and potential links via or to the Internet but I do not foresee routing issues there). Best regards, Marc van Selm -- -- This mail is personal -- All statements in this mail are made from my own personal perspective and do not necessarily reflect my employer's opinions or policies.
Hi, Marc van Selm schrieb:
I'm wondering. ARIN and AfriNIC assign PI space for end-sites. They both do /48 (ARIN also does a /48 as I remember correctly). Isn't the discussion in the RIPE area not getting a bit too long and taken over by events.
As an example, NATO can also just as easily apply for space from ARIN (although RIPE covers more of NATO's area of operation as it seems). Something similar would be true for many International customers interested in PI.
Just wondering... Shouldn't we just give up our strong feelings and face the fact that other bits of the world have already acted, just do it and coordinate a global route filter policy etc so that things actually work? [...]
yes, "we" should do that, please send some troops to repacify the enemy dorkheads, thank you :-) </sarcasm> A while ago, i made a rather simple suggestion as a reaction to Jordi's latest incarnation of his PI-policy proposal (which is - sorry- stupid). The only concerns i've seen about it so far was that one might be a bit more precise about the wording. Since then i haven't seen much activitiy about the proposal anymore. I feel the urge to move on here. The PDP is getting really stupid at this point (>1,5 years?). If nothing positively happens with 2006-01 soon, i tend to hand in my own proposal and call for NATO air support :-) -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
Hi, On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 09:04:25AM +0200, Sascha Lenz wrote:
Since then i haven't seen much activitiy about the proposal anymore.
Well, one of the things that's delaying the "PI activities" (IPv4 and IPv6) is the dependency on the 2007-01 proposal (contractual relationship with PI/AS holders). Unless we get *that* one sorted out, it's hard to make meaningful progress with the individual proposals that all depend on "but we want the number holder to have a contract with RIPE!". I'm confident that we can see some progress on 2007-01 before the next RIPE meeting, and maybe structure the next APWG meeting a bit differently - not spending all the time discussing individual proposals in depth, but using some of the time to get a more "global" discussion on which direction the journey should take, and then break that down to specific proposals. 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 Thursday 19 July 2007 10:24, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 09:04:25AM +0200, Sascha Lenz wrote:
Since then i haven't seen much activitiy about the proposal anymore.
Well, one of the things that's delaying the "PI activities" (IPv4 and IPv6) is the dependency on the 2007-01 proposal (contractual relationship with PI/AS holders).
Unless we get *that* one sorted out, it's hard to make meaningful progress with the individual proposals that all depend on "but we want the number holder to have a contract with RIPE!".
That makes perfect sense Gert. Regards, Marc van Selm -- -- This mail is personal -- All statements in this mail are made from my own personal perspective and do not necessarily reflect my employer's opinions or policies.
Hi Sascha, I replied to your comments with some new questions, but never saw your response, not sure if I missed something. I'm trying to submit a new version during the next couple of days, so any new inputs are always welcome ! Regards, Jordi
De: Sascha Lenz <slz@baycix.de> Organización: BayCIX GmbH Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Fecha: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:04:25 +0200 Para: Marc van Selm <marc.van.selm@nc3a.nato.int> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI policy implemented
Hi,
Marc van Selm schrieb:
I'm wondering. ARIN and AfriNIC assign PI space for end-sites. They both do /48 (ARIN also does a /48 as I remember correctly). Isn't the discussion in the RIPE area not getting a bit too long and taken over by events.
As an example, NATO can also just as easily apply for space from ARIN (although RIPE covers more of NATO's area of operation as it seems). Something similar would be true for many International customers interested in PI.
Just wondering... Shouldn't we just give up our strong feelings and face the fact that other bits of the world have already acted, just do it and coordinate a global route filter policy etc so that things actually work? [...]
yes, "we" should do that, please send some troops to repacify the enemy dorkheads, thank you :-)
</sarcasm>
A while ago, i made a rather simple suggestion as a reaction to Jordi's latest incarnation of his PI-policy proposal (which is - sorry- stupid). The only concerns i've seen about it so far was that one might be a bit more precise about the wording.
Since then i haven't seen much activitiy about the proposal anymore.
I feel the urge to move on here. The PDP is getting really stupid at this point (>1,5 years?). If nothing positively happens with 2006-01 soon, i tend to hand in my own proposal and call for NATO air support :-)
-- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
********************************************** 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)
-
Ernest Byaruhanga (AfriNIC) -
Gert Doering -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Marc van Selm -
Randy Bush -
Sascha Lenz