2008-01 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2008-01 has been extended until 16 May 2008. With the acceptance of this proposal, the RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time operation to assign a /56 IPv6 PI prefix to all End Users with an IPv4 assignment registered in the RIPE Database. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-01.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
Le lundi 28 avril 2008 à 14:01 +0200, Filiz Yilmaz a écrit :
PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder
Dear Colleagues,
The Review Period for the proposal 2008-01 has been extended until 16 May 2008.
With the acceptance of this proposal, the RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time operation to assign a /56 IPv6 PI prefix to all End Users with an IPv4 assignment registered in the RIPE Database.
You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-01.html
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>.
Regards,
Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
We support : we suggest /48 for /22 or more Ipv4 PI Holder. and /56 for less /22 (/23 /24) ipv4 pi Holder. is it possible to imagine 2 processes of this automatic distribution ? 1) first : use admin-c and tech-c to contact and ask if they are alive ? delay answer 15 days or more ? that permit to have an idea about dead/phantom Ipv4 PI users. 2) distribution bst regards. Frédéric
* Frederic wrote:
Le lundi 28 avril 2008 à 14:01 +0200, Filiz Yilmaz a écrit :
PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder
We support :
we suggest /48 for /22 or more Ipv4 PI Holder. and /56 for less /22 (/23 /24) ipv4 pi Holder.
This proposal is about IPv6 PI for every IPv4 PA holder. It's not for IPv4 PI.
1) first : use admin-c and tech-c to contact and ask if they are alive ?
The role adresses have to be correct. That's part of the LIR commitment.
Le lundi 28 avril 2008 à 12:43 +0000, Lutz Donnerhacke a écrit :
* Frederic wrote:
Le lundi 28 avril 2008 à 14:01 +0200, Filiz Yilmaz a écrit :
PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder
We support :
we suggest /48 for /22 or more Ipv4 PI Holder. and /56 for less /22 (/23 /24) ipv4 pi Holder.
This proposal is about IPv6 PI for every IPv4 PA holder. It's not for IPv4 PI.
PROPOSAL: Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Ipv4-PI holser has inetnum. bst regards. Frederic
1) first : use admin-c and tech-c to contact and ask if they are alive ?
The role adresses have to be correct. That's part of the LIR commitment.
In iks.lists.ripe.address-policy-wg, you wrote:
Le lundi 28 avril 2008 à 12:43 +0000, Lutz Donnerhacke a écrit :
* Frederic wrote:
we suggest /48 for /22 or more Ipv4 PI Holder. and /56 for less /22 (/23 /24) ipv4 pi Holder.
This proposal is about IPv6 PI for every IPv4 PA holder. It's not for IPv4 PI.
PROPOSAL: Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder
Ipv4-PI holser has inetnum.
Of course. I misunderstand your intention. Sorry.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder
Dear Colleagues,
The Review Period for the proposal 2008-01 has been extended until 16 May 2008.
With the acceptance of this proposal, the RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time operation to assign a /56 IPv6 PI prefix to all End Users with an IPv4 assignment registered in the RIPE Database.
You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-01.html
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>.
Regards,
Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
I'm against this proposal. I'm in favour of IPv6 PI allocations which are the result of an explict IPv6 address request (from future holders). Regards, ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Friac,as See: Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN) www.gigapix.pt FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional www.ipv6.eu Av. do Brasil, n.101 www.6diss.org 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, Europe Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167 www.fccn.pt ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The end is near........ see http://ipv4.potaroo.net "Internet is just routes (241744/992), naming (billions) and... people!" Esta mensagem foi enviada de: / This message was sent from: 2001:690:2080:8004:250:daff:fe3b:2830 Aviso de Confidencialidade Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo de imediato. Warning This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received due to any error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately.
On 28 Apr 2008, at 13:48, Carlos Friacas wrote:
PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder I'm against this proposal. I'm in favour of IPv6 PI allocations which are the result of an explict IPv6 address request (from future holders).
I agree with Carlos. I find it frustrating that I can't request IPv6 PI for my customers who want it today, but here we have a proposal suggesting anyone with v4 PI can have some v6 PI automatically. I would be rolling out v6 PI services for customer networks if I could ask for some v6 PI ! Andy
Le mercredi 30 avril 2008 à 00:16 +0100, Andy Davidson a écrit :
On 28 Apr 2008, at 13:48, Carlos Friacas wrote:
PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder I'm against this proposal. I'm in favour of IPv6 PI allocations which are the result of an explict IPv6 address request (from future holders).
I agree with Carlos.
I find it frustrating that I can't request IPv6 PI for my customers who want it today, but here we have a proposal suggesting anyone with v4 PI can have some v6 PI automatically. I would be rolling out v6 PI services for customer networks if I could ask for some v6 PI !
Andy
It is a way to keep captive his client, because if he receives an automatic block IPV6 and that its suppliers do not know do certain things, it could have the unfortunate idea to go elsewhere. keep all under control! That is why this automatic distribution is really a very good idea for the development of the Internet. that why we support, and that why i'm not agree with carlos and andy ;) bst regards. Frédéric
On 30 Apr 2008, at 08:51, Frederic wrote:
It is a way to keep captive his client, because if he receives an automatic block IPV6 and that its suppliers do not know do certain things, it could have the unfortunate idea to go elsewhere.
Respectfully, no. PI means provider *independent*. If I apply for PA and assign /48s, my customer is not free to multihome simply, or move providers without renumbering. Whether I submit an application for PI on behalf of my customer, or whether RIPE give them some PI because of this policy, it doesn't change my customers' ability to multihome or even terminate their service with me. Support ipv6 PI, please. But only by request. Best wishes Andy
Hello, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 30 Apr 2008, at 08:51, Frederic wrote:
It is a way to keep captive his client, because if he receives an automatic block IPV6 and that its suppliers do not know do certain things, it could have the unfortunate idea to go elsewhere.
Respectfully, no.
PI means provider *independent*. If I apply for PA and assign /48s, my customer is not free to multihome simply, or move providers without renumbering.
Actually you can multihome, as simple as it gets. Who can stop you to set up personal peerings with others, just because you're already in routing tables (as part of the bigger PA alloc prefix)?
Whether I submit an application for PI on behalf of my customer, or whether RIPE give them some PI because of this policy, it doesn't change my customers' ability to multihome or even terminate their service with me.
As I've said above, multihoming is possible inside of PA, but you (almost) always will get being tied with PA holder, i.e. in (almost) any case you will be visible as part of PA alloc announcement, more speficial is preferable, remember. Once again, PA and PI doesn't really differ from routing point of view. I have no expirience with IPv6 at all, all written above is correct with IPv4, and
Support ipv6 PI, please. But only by request. Support IPv6, period. I don't think we need all the garbage with PI in IPv6 as we have in IPv4 ("lost" address space)
Best wishes Andy
-- Best regards, Alexander Lobachov alxl@cronosit.lv System administrator Cronos IT, SIA
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Alexander Lobachov wrote:
Hello,
Andy Davidson wrote:
On 30 Apr 2008, at 08:51, Frederic wrote:
It is a way to keep captive his client, because if he receives an automatic block IPV6 and that its suppliers do not know do certain things, it could have the unfortunate idea to go elsewhere.
Respectfully, no.
PI means provider *independent*. If I apply for PA and assign /48s, my customer is not free to multihome simply, or move providers without renumbering.
Actually you can multihome, as simple as it gets. Who can stop you to set up personal peerings with others, just because you're already in routing tables (as part of the bigger PA alloc prefix)?
Whether I submit an application for PI on behalf of my customer, or whether RIPE give them some PI because of this policy, it doesn't change my customers' ability to multihome or even terminate their service with me.
As I've said above, multihoming is possible inside of PA, but you (almost) always will get being tied with PA holder, i.e. in (almost) any case you will be visible as part of PA alloc announcement, more speficial is preferable, remember.
Once again, PA and PI doesn't really differ from routing point of view.
I think it is different from operational routing point of view: If you have PA prefix you can announce your routes only to your provider unless you have different agreement with your friendly peers. But these friendly peers should not announce your PA routes anyone else upstream. Aggregation should happen via your provider allocated PA for you. In case of PI you much more freedom.... Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi
participants (7)
-
Alexander Lobachov -
Andy Davidson -
Carlos Friacas -
Filiz Yilmaz -
Frederic -
Lutz Donnerhacke -
Mohacsi Janos