Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10
Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. 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.
On 2014年11月9日, at 上午11:00, 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. FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) (Erik Bais) 2. Re: 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) (Andy Davidson) 3. Re: 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) (Andy Davidson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 17:00:35 +0100 From: "Erik Bais" <ebais@a2b-internet.com> Subject: [address-policy-wg] FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) To: <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Message-ID: <002601cffb6d$2647cb00$72d76100$@a2b-internet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Hi,
This email is to inform the people who are subscribed on the IPv6 WG list but not on the Address Policy WG list.
There is a policy proposal currently in discussion phase to Allow IPv6 Transfers.
You can find the full proposal at:
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 28 November 2014.
Regards, Erik Bais
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: policy-announce-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:policy-announce-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Marco Schmidt Verzonden: donderdag 30 oktober 2014 13:43 Aan: policy-announce@ripe.net CC: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Onderwerp: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
Dear colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 28 November 2014.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 09:58:40 +0000 From: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) To: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20141109095830.GA31177@chilli.default.andyd.uk0.bigv.io> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 01:43:29PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 [... Allow IPv6 Transfer ...] We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 28 November 2014.
Support.
-a
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 10:05:49 +0000 From: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) To: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20141109100549.GB31177@chilli.default.andyd.uk0.bigv.io> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 03:56:48PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 [... Allow AS Number Transfers ...] We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 28 November 2014.
Support the end result but don't support text as it stands.
- Would prefer not to see it possible to transfer ASN on a temporary basis - if an organisation needs temporary resources these are available from the RIPE NCC.
- Not sure if a list of non-approved ASN transfers is useful, and concerned that it might put people off registering transfers with the NCC.
-a
End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10 *************************************************
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 04:06:34PM +0000, Lu wrote:
Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal IP address is the day we really in a world of v6.
It's a fair point, actually. IPv6 should no longer be treated as "special". Also, while there are "language-hygiene" efforts underway, should "address-policy" not be renamed to "resource-policy"? It would make clearer that it is no longer about just IP addresses (if it ever was). rgds, Sascha Luck
Hello, On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote:
Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal IP address is the day we really in a world of v6.
In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support this proposal. -- +358 44 9756548 / http://www.trex.fi/ Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy You say "potato", I say "closest-exit."
Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen:
Hello,
On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote:
Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal IP address is the day we really in a world of v6.
In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support this proposal.
Hi, I do not support this proposal. Renaming the WG to "resource-policy" would be ok, but this is not the important point. The "address-policy" WG deals with how we give IP adresses to members and non members, it is about contracts and fair distribution of resources in a fairly large region. In the IPv6 working group we deal with the technical aspects of IPv6, just have a look at the presentation Jen Linkovagave in London. Or have a look into the drafts of the IPv6 working groups at the IETF. There is still a lot of research going on. And many organisations just start with IPv6. Learning from others is very valuable. These aspects would not be addressed in a "resource-policy" WG. I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today. Regards, Wilhelm
On 12 Nov 2014, at 09:26, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus <wilhelm@boeddinghaus.de> wrote:
I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today.
+1
hello, a rather late reply On 11/12/2014 11:26 AM, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus wrote:
Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen:
Hello,
On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote:
Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal IP address is the day we really in a world of v6.
In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support this proposal.
sorry, but this just doesn't make sense. RIPE's IPv6 WG is about promoting IPv6 adoption and there's definitely a long way to go... http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ipv6
Hi,
But please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today.
+1 regards, Yannis
Regards,
Wilhelm
On 12 Nov 2014, at 07:32, Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012@ssd.axu.tm> wrote:
In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness.
If that was true, it would mean the IPv6 WG should be shut down because it had nothing to do. Please present the evidence for your claim and for killing the IPv6 WG.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012@ssd.axu.tm> wrote:
Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need two different wg for addressing?
Because IPv6 WG is not for addressing. IPv6 is not 'IPv4 with bigger address space'.
the day we start treat IPv6 as normal
IP address is the day we really in a world of v6.
I have no objection to *this* statement, so I'd expect that all discussions related to IPv[4,6] address policy are happening in this mailing list, while IPv6 WG discusses technical aspects of IPv6 deployment.
In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about address policy.
Exactly.
In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness.
I strongly disagree. Shall I read it as a proposal to shut down IPv6 WG as well? I'd object to say the least. There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to address policy. Anyway, I'm surprised to see a discussion about shutting down a mailing list happening in *another* mailing list. If community feels like 'there is nothing to discuss in IPv6 WG mailing list anymore' (which does not seem to be a case as I can see from the replies to your message), it should be discussed there. I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion, however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 list untouched. -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
I agree (keep the IPv6 list untouched). Janos 2014.11.12. 20:21 keltezéssel, Jen Linkova írta:
I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion, however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 list untouched.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:31:33AM +0100, Janos Zsako wrote:
I agree (keep the IPv6 list untouched).
+1 Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl
Hi folks, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012@ssd.axu.tm> wrote: [...]
In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. [...] There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to address policy.
I fully agree with Jen here. If I take a look at last week's IPv6 WG session in London (agenda and video at https://ripe69.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ipv6-wg/) I don't see *anything* there actually related to address policy. @Aleksi: Maybe you could explain *why* you "think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness" at this point?
Anyway, I'm surprised to see a discussion about shutting down a mailing list happening in *another* mailing list. [...]
I also consider this approach rather rude, but I guess we should still try to keep such matters of style separate from the actual topic at hand. In any case, discussion on shutting down the IPv6 WG mailing list obviously doesn't belong on the address policy WG list; it would be a decision to be made in the IPv6 working group. That said, if I was more involved with the address policy WG, I'd also expect to get involved if someone proposed to dump some other WG discussions into "my" mailing list. If you want to see something similar (albeit "backwards") having happened in the past, take a look at the IETF V6OPS WG mailing list before they forked SUNSET4.
I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion,
Thank you, Jen! As far as I'm concerned, I do archive the address policy WG, but I don't generally follow it. And I've got a strong impression that there are others who actively monitor the IPv6 list but don't even archive the address policy list.
however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 list untouched.
So do I. \begin{wg-chair-mode} To deal with this question properly I suggest we follow a two step approach: - First we see *on the IPv6 WG mailing list*---and please set the rcpt accordingly---if there is some sort of consensus to propose a merger with the address policy WG list. - If that consensus is actually reached, then as the second step the address policy WG should decide if they actually agree with our (IPv6) discussions moving there. I haven't had time to talk about this with Jen and Dave directly, but as far as I'm concerned if there is no further discussion on this on the IPv6 mailing list, I'll consider that as consensus with Jen's statement and assume the question settled. \end{wg-chair-mode} Cheers, Benedikt -- Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/ Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/
On 12.11.14, 08.32, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about address policy. According to the charter - address policy is outside the charter of the IPv6 wg.
See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ipv6 -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. You may want to have a look at the charter for the two working-groups,
On 09.11.14, 17.06, Lu wrote: they were as I remember carefully crafted some years back - to make sure there is no overlap. As Address-policy is normally two time-slots and Ipv6 1-2 timeslots a combined working-group would be pretty large. One reason to treat Ipv6 different than Ip4 is that the RIPE community still need to focus on promoting an d deployment of Ipv6 . a challenge we do not have with Ipv4:-) But this is of-course up to the Workinggroups... http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ipv6 IPv6 is the next generation Internet Protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to promote IPv6 adoption. The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people to deploy IPv6, and to manage IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. These activities include: * Outreach * Education * Sharing deployment experiences * Discussing and fixing operational issues The working group will cooperate with operators and others, both inside and outside the networking industry, to share resources and combine efforts. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ap The Address Policy Working Group develops policies relating to the management and registration of Internet addresses and routing identifiers (currently IPv4, IPv6 and ASN) by the RIPE NCC and the LIRs within the RIPE NCC Service Region. Anyone with an interest in Internet numbering issues is welcome to observe participate and contribute to the working group. -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
participants (11)
-
Aleksi Suhonen -
Benedikt Stockebrand -
Hans Petter Holen -
Janos Zsako -
Jen Linkova -
Jim Reid -
Lu -
Piotr Strzyzewski -
Sascha Luck [ml] -
Wilhelm Boeddinghaus -
Yannis Nikolopoulos