late comments on 2009-06
Dear colleagues, the last call for 2009-06 is very close to expiring... I'm sorry I'm coming this late with a few comments. I certainly support the the motion to remove from the contraints for routing announcements from the address allocation policy; I voiced my support already at the last RIPE meeting with strong words. I hope that Rob Evans' initiative to draft a document on recommended annoucement practices in IPv6 in routing WG will result in document providing guidance on usage of aggregates, more specifics etc. without unduely stressing the global routing system. Admittedly this will be much harder than the removal of a few words from existing policy text (as 2009-06 does). Recently a potential downside of the removal of routing constraints from allocation policy came to my attention: NCC resource analysts might begin to encourage or even force LIRs to plan to deaggragate announcements when discussing requests for address space. For the record: I'd strongly request that NCC should refrain from doing so until documents giving guidance on appropriate use of deaggregation, or announcements of more specifics have been written and agreed upon. Applying such restraint seems not to require explicit text in the allocation policy - though I can see that NCC using or not using such restraint can in some cases lead to different results in evaluating requests for address space; i.e. some times allocating an additional separate address block when using a more specific out of another allocation might be another way for solving a particular routing requirement. Before closing let me make another nit: I feel quite uncomfortable to see the the second paragraph the impact analysis for fragmentaion/aggregation: it would be better to ONLY have the "we cannot seriously estimate" of the first paragraph than juggle meaningless short sighted numbers. Regards, Ruediger Ruediger Volk Deutsche Telekom AG -- Internet Backbone Engineering E-Mail: rv@NIC.DTAG.DE Phone: +49 251 7985 200 fax: +49 251 7985 109
Hi Ruediger,
I certainly support the the motion to remove from the contraints for routing announcements from the address allocation policy; I voiced my support already at the last RIPE meeting with strong words.
Thanks.
Recently a potential downside of the removal of routing constraints from allocation policy came to my attention: NCC resource analysts might begin to encourage or even force LIRs to plan to deaggragate announcements when discussing requests for address space.
I thought the situation at the moment was that the only justification for additional IPv6 addresss space was utilisation (section 5.2 of the policy). Routing considerations are not taken into account, so what we were doing was allowing more people to use IPv6. Are you suggesting the potential deaggregators can already get multiple prefixes per LIR? If that is the case, then perhaps we do not need to relax the aggregation requirement. The proposal does not remove section 3.4 of the policy (goal of aggregation), but attempts to balance that and 3.5 (goal of conservation). Regards, Rob -- JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG
Hi Rob, Ruediger, On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 02:03:52PM +0100, Rob Evans wrote:
were doing was allowing more people to use IPv6. Are you suggesting the potential deaggregators can already get multiple prefixes per LIR?
They can't. This is why multiple people have brought up this issue in the APWG, originally asking for "special rules under which a second PA block could be assigned" - which found no consensus, so we changed the angle of attacking this.
If that is the case, then perhaps we do not need to relax the aggregation requirement.
We do - I think this was a misunderstanding between Ruediger and you. Ruediger is worried that the removal of the existing requirements might lead to misinterpretation on the side of the NCC IPRAs, who could then (theoretically) actually *suggest* large-scale deaggregation to new IPv6 applicants. Which would, of course, be harmful, and not the aim of this policy change. So we definitely need to go forward with the routing WG document on IPv6 announcement best practices :-) - which could then be used by the IPRAs as "operator community" reference. Confusion cleared up? Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 141055 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 (3)
-
Gert Doering -
Rob Evans -
Ruediger Volk, Deutsche Telekom T-Com - TE141-P1