Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 10
I personally believe we might no longer need to distinguish PI and PA--it might solve all the question all together. On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:49 AM, <address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net> wrote:
Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg@ripe.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net
You can reach the person managing the list at address-policy-wg-owner@ripe.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) (Sander Steffann) 2. Re: 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) (Tore Anderson) 3. Re: 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) (Sander Steffann) 4. Re: 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) (Richard Hartmann) 5. Re: 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) (Sander Steffann) 6. Re: 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) (Tore Anderson) 7. Re: 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) (Carlos Friacas) 8. Re: 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) (Erik Bais)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 21:08:41 +0200 From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) To: Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled@gmail.com> Cc: Gert D?ring <gert@space.net>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net Working Group" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Message-ID: <092F992E-EC5E-403D-90DC-CF8186258D89@steffann.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi Jan,
Historically it was put in there as an encouragement for "last /8" LIRs to "do something with IPv6"...
I know that, but that's not quite what I meant.
What I meant is that I don't see why the current requirement for IPv6 PA is there, but that the current document didn't already have IPv6 PI as a valid requirement.
Not either-or.
I first thought that the last /8 policy was written before IPv6 PI for LIRs became possible, so I checked: - IPv6 PI for LIRS was 2009-08 (concluded in 2009) - Last /8 was 2010-02
Seems I was wrong. IPv6 PI for LIRs did exist at the time that the last /8 policy was written. I think at the time we just didn't even consider LIRs that didn't want/need IPv6 PA space.
Cheers, Sander
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 21:53:34 +0200 From: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled@gmail.com> Cc: Gert D?ring <gert@space.net>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net Working Group" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5367EC3E.5040209@fud.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
* Sander Steffann
I think at the time we just didn't even consider LIRs that didn't want/need IPv6 PA space.
Right. But the summary of the proposal identifies the *actual* problem here:
?In order to qualify [for IPv6 PA], they need to request an IPv6 allocation and subsequently return their existing PI assignment (per ripe-589 section 7.1)?
If that PI assignment is already in use, a requirement to renumber and return it might be a showstopper for getting PA space. Renumbering is *hard* - it is *a lot* of work.
So while I don't think 2014-04 is harmful in any way and I don't have any objections to it, I do find it quite puzzling that it does not try to fix the actual problem in ripe-589 section 7.1 - which, if 2014-04 were to pass, would remain just as ?downright deleterious to IPv6 adoption? as before.
Tore
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 22:02:36 +0200 From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) To: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> Cc: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net Working Group" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, Gert D?ring <gert@space.net> Message-ID: <4815E7AE-510E-4A78-81B9-AF4555D34ECF@steffann.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Hi,
I think at the time we just didn't even consider LIRs that didn't want/need IPv6 PA space.
Right. But the summary of the proposal identifies the *actual* problem here:
?In order to qualify [for IPv6 PA], they need to request an IPv6 allocation and subsequently return their existing PI assignment (per ripe-589 section 7.1)?
Yep, seen that.
If that PI assignment is already in use, a requirement to renumber and return it might be a showstopper for getting PA space. Renumbering is *hard* - it is *a lot* of work.
Ack
So while I don't think 2014-04 is harmful in any way and I don't have any objections to it, I do find it quite puzzling that it does not try to fix the actual problem in ripe-589 section 7.1 - which, if 2014-04 were to pass, would remain just as ?downright deleterious to IPv6 adoption? as before.
It is again a balance of address policy vs routing table conservation. I personally wouldn't have a problem with letting an LIR keep their PI space when they get their PA space. How does this working group feel about that?
Cheers, Sander
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 22:02:49 +0200 From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) To: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> Cc: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net Working Group" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, Gert D?ring <gert@space.net> Message-ID: <CAD77+gQcWNcNdyKdwkTR1O3jdePZ-fabno9ncU6oWctgzxkE5A@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
If that PI assignment is already in use, a requirement to renumber and return it might be a showstopper for getting PA space. Renumbering is *hard* - it is *a lot* of work.
As the guy who renumbered a /17 in a few months: Yes. Oh my $deity... yes.
So while I don't think 2014-04 is harmful in any way and I don't have any objections to it, I do find it quite puzzling that it does not try to fix the actual problem in ripe-589 section 7.1 - which, if 2014-04 were to pass, would remain just as ?downright deleterious to IPv6 adoption? as before.
I would also support such a proposal or maybe even help spearhead it. ...Tore?
Richard
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 22:07:08 +0200 From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) To: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, Gert D?ring <gert@space.net> Cc: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net Working Group" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Message-ID: <005C7559-A48E-4F8C-B858-BB18A58F7909@steffann.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Hi,
So while I don't think 2014-04 is harmful in any way and I don't have any objections to it, I do find it quite puzzling that it does not try to fix the actual problem in ripe-589 section 7.1 - which, if 2014-04 were to pass, would remain just as ?downright deleterious to IPv6 adoption? as before.
I would also support such a proposal or maybe even help spearhead it. ...Tore?
/me feels an agenda item for section Y coming up...
Cheers, Sander
------------------------------
Message: 6 Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 07:13:54 +0200 From: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Cc: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net Working Group" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, Gert D?ring <gert@space.net> Message-ID: <53686F92.5060400@fud.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
* Sander Steffann
It is again a balance of address policy vs routing table conservation. I personally wouldn't have a problem with letting an LIR keep their PI space when they get their PA space. How does this working group feel about that?
Me neither. I think is fine to *encourage* newly formed LIRs to return IPv6 PI when they're requesting PA, but *requiring* it is a tad too tough. If the end result is that the newly formed LIRs cannot provision their End Users with IPv6 addresses because they cannot realistically get PA space, we're doing something wrong...
That said, this isn't my itch to scratch really (I already have all the IPv6 I need)...so if you want to do a proposal, Richard, go right ahead! I promised myself 2014 would be a proposal-free year...and besides I won't be going to Warszawa either. :-/
Tore
------------------------------
Message: 7 Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 07:22:49 +0100 (WEST) From: Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Cc: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net Working Group" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.11.1405060721480.11281@gauntlet.id.fccn.pt> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Mon, 5 May 2014, Sander Steffann wrote:
(...)
It is again a balance of address policy vs routing table conservation. I personally wouldn't have a problem with letting an LIR keep their PI space when they get their PA space. How does this working group feel about that?
Should be allowed to keep the PI, i.e. avoiding renumbering at all cost.
Cheers, Carlos
Cheers, Sander
------------------------------
Message: 8 Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 11:48:49 +0200 From: "Erik Bais" <ebais@a2b-internet.com> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) To: "'Sander Steffann'" <sander@steffann.nl>, "'Tore Anderson'" <tore@fud.no> Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net, 'Gert D?ring' <gert@space.net> Message-ID: <005a01cf6910$67958880$36c09980$@a2b-internet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Hi,
Right. But the summary of the proposal identifies the *actual* problem here:
?In order to qualify [for IPv6 PA], they need to request an IPv6 allocation and subsequently return their existing PI assignment (per ripe-589 section 7.1)?
Yep, seen that.
Why should an LIR have to return his PI space if they have valid reasons for its use and are already using it ?
I agree with Tore that to encourage a LIR to return a v6 PI assignments if they can, but if it is in use and active, I would feel strongly against a requirement to return the space and get a PA block.
Having a v6 allocation doesn't guarantee the usage of v6 ... and if someone went through the trouble in the past to actually get a v6 PI assignment and later decides to become a LIR, they get a penalty and are required to return the space !!
Besides that and the issue that a v6 PI assignment doesn't 'qualify' for the final /8 v4 allocation list, are in my opinion the 2 items that should be fixed.
As a suggestion to the authors for the policy text:
Skip the distinction between v6 PA or PI in the policy text and rephrase it to :
b. New policy text 5.1 Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs [...] Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received v6 resources from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC.
And include a change to ripe-589 section 7.1 ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-589#IPv6_PI_Assignments )
Original text: 7.1 IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs LIRs can qualify for an IPv6 PI assignment for parts of their own infrastructure that are not used for customer end sites. Where an LIR has an IPv6 allocation, the LIR must demonstrate the unique routing requirements for the PI assignment.
The LIR must return the IPv6 PI assignment within a period of six months if the original criteria on which the assignment was based are no longer valid.
If an organisation already received a PI assignment before becoming an LIR, the PI assignment should be returned upon receiving an IPv6 allocation if there are no specific routing requirements to justify both.
Updated text: 7.1 IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs LIRs can qualify for an IPv6 PI assignment for parts of their own infrastructure that are not used for customer end sites. Where an LIR has an IPv6 allocation, the LIR must demonstrate the unique routing requirements for the PI assignment.
The LIR must return the IPv6 PI assignment within a period of six months if the original criteria on which the assignment was based are no longer valid.
If an organisation already received a PI assignment before becoming an LIR, the PI assignment should be returned upon receiving an IPv6 allocation, if the original criteria on which the assignment was based are no longer valid.
Regards, Erik Bais
End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 10 *************************************************
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Hi, On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 03:57:25PM -0500, Lu Heng wrote:
I personally believe we might no longer need to distinguish PI and PA--it might solve all the question all together.
We tried to go there, the WG rejected the proposal... and I can understand that, as the complications in the actual implementations are significant. 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 03:57:25PM -0500, Lu Heng wrote:
I personally believe we might no longer need to distinguish PI and PA--it might solve all the question all together.
We tried to go there, the WG rejected the proposal... and I can understand that, as the complications in the actual implementations are significant.
Hmm as I remember there was no rejection of the idea, more a cancellation of the started work due to the implication and complication involved in getting done. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no
Hi Roger, On 08/05/14 00:00, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 03:57:25PM -0500, Lu Heng wrote:
I personally believe we might no longer need to distinguish PI and PA--it might solve all the question all together. We tried to go there, the WG rejected the proposal... and I can understand that, as the complications in the actual implementations are significant. Hmm as I remember there was no rejection of the idea, more a cancellation of the started work due to the implication and complication involved in getting done.
it was rejected mostly because it would have caused a lot of changes and it was too complex. I still have the idea to come back and do it with a step-by-step approach but I haven't yet managed to decide what would be the first step :-) elvis -- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Business Analyst Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
On Thu, 8 May 2014, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 03:57:25PM -0500, Lu Heng wrote:
I personally believe we might no longer need to distinguish PI and PA--it might solve all the question all together.
We tried to go there, the WG rejected the proposal... and I can understand that, as the complications in the actual implementations are significant.
Hmm as I remember there was no rejection of the idea, more a cancellation of the started work due to the implication and complication involved in getting done.
We received mainly positive feed back on the mailing list but at the presentation what we heard was generally negative and "don't go there", "please stop" etc. Not that many voices but those who spoke were firmly negative. So while many members seem to agree that the PA/PI difference is something we should get rid of, the roots go deep and a even if we just want to start fresh in IPv6 it affects almost every area. I still think it would be a good thing but I am not sure about how to accomplish such a change. Cheers, Daniel _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
Hi I guess the earlier we get rid of the difference, the easier it is to implemented PI space will only cause more and more future problems/administrative hassles as long as its exists. End of the day, they are all IP addresses, you can use your own allocation in any other LIR's network and let them manage for you, that is perfectly fine practise(like what you do nowadays with PI space), so there is no real operational difference between PI space or allocation to start with, why should we keep the difference? On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Daniel Stolpe <stolpe@resilans.se> wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2014, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 03:57:25PM -0500, Lu Heng wrote:
I personally believe we might no longer need to distinguish PI and PA--it might solve all the question all together.
We tried to go there, the WG rejected the proposal... and I can understand that, as the complications in the actual implementations are significant.
Hmm as I remember there was no rejection of the idea, more a cancellation of the started work due to the implication and complication involved in getting done.
We received mainly positive feed back on the mailing list but at the presentation what we heard was generally negative and "don't go there", "please stop" etc.
Not that many voices but those who spoke were firmly negative.
So while many members seem to agree that the PA/PI difference is something we should get rid of, the roots go deep and a even if we just want to start fresh in IPv6 it affects almost every area.
I still think it would be a good thing but I am not sure about how to accomplish such a change.
Cheers,
Daniel
_________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
participants (5)
-
Daniel Stolpe -
Elvis Daniel Velea -
Gert Doering -
Lu Heng -
Roger Jørgensen