February 2002 - ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Summary of IPv6 Policy Discussions at RIPE41
by James Aldridge 27 Feb '02

27 Feb '02

With apologies for the time that it's taken me to get this posted to the list, here is an attempt to summarise the discussions which took place among the approx. 180 people attending the Local IR working group at RIPE41 on 16th January 2002. Although many of those attending the working group had read the published draft, | IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy | Draft of December, 22 2001 | Version 2001-12-22 | APNIC | ARIN | RIPE - NCC we started this session with a presentation by Mirjam Kuehne from the RIPE NCC (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-41/presentations/ipv6-mir/) which summarised the main points of the current document. Most of the discussion centered on section 5.2 of the draft related to the Initial Allocation Criteria and Initial Allocation Size | 5.2.1. Initial allocation criteria | | A requesting organization can receive an initial allocation by | demonstrating that it has an immediate (i.e., within next three | months) requirement for at least a /36 prefix. That is, immediately | after the allocation, the organization will have 776 or more sites in | need of address assignments. 776 is the number of /48 address blocks | that can be assigned out of a /36 address block to achieve an HD- | Ratio of 0.8. The HD-Ratio is an address allocation utilization | metric proposed in RFC 3194 as an adaptation of the H-Ratio | originally defined in [RFC1715]. (See also Section 5.3.3.) | | [Note: discussion is needed as to whether justification for need of a | /36 is reasonable initial starting point, or whether the criteria of | an immediate need to address 776 sites is too high. Note also, that | once a request for an initial allocation has been granted, the | minimum allocation (i.e., /32) is provided, even though the requestor | has not justified a need for such a large amount of space.] The general consensus at the meeting was that this placed too high a barrier to registries at a time when getting real IPv6 deployment underway was seen as becoming more urgent. Several alternatives were discussed, but the one which seemed to achieve almost complete consensus from those at the meeting involved dropping the "776 or more sites" and HD-Ratio requirements completely. The proposal can be summarised as: "For a limited period (no more than the first 2000 allocations in each RIR area was suggested), a requesting registry (either a LIR or NIR in the draft's terminology) would receive a /32 minimum allocation from the appropriate RIR on the documentation of at least one /48 assignment." This is just one way of removing the barrier imposed in the current draft... there are, of course, other possibilities which weren't discussed at the meeting. This lowers the barrier to whatever policies the RIRs have in place for the establishment of new local or national registries. The aim was seen as being to obtain global consensus based on the current draft as an *interim* policy, with final policy being worked on as experience was gained during the "2000*3 allocations" period. Time was such that discussion of other sections of the draft were only covered briefly, if at all. James Aldridge (Co-chair, RIPE LIR WG)

1 0

up a few thousand meters
by Randy Bush 15 Feb '02

15 Feb '02

the rirs, as the meeting place of those responsible for prudent operation of the network, have traditionally been where the compromise between the three *competing* and *conflicting* vectors of o address space conservation, o routing table growth, and o ease of allocation for isps have responsibly reached compromise. this has not been an easy balance because the three really are in conflict with each-other. but, as prudent operators, and as shepherds of a public good, we have struggled along to manage in a really pretty responsible fashion. witness that one can get and use the ip space one needs, the routing table has not gotten completely unmanageable (especially if you filter prudently <g>), and there is a fair amount of v4 space left. as we move into the v6 world, prudent folk find it hard not to assume that the same or similar forces will be at work. v6 gives us zero leverage on the routing table expansion problem. there is no reason to believe that the seemingly enormous 128 bit address space of v6 will turn out to be any more infinite than the seemingly enormous 32 bit address space did some decades ago. and, as operators, we still have the annoying problems and responsibilities of acquiring, tracking, allocating, ... the address space which is vital to our businesses. in moving forward, it would seem irresponsible to let one consideration obviate all others. e.g. some once thought tlas would solve the routing table growth issue by limiting the global universe to 8k isps. this month, others think ease of allocation is most important, and the problems of address consumption and routing table growth are old-fashioned fears. sadly, as we have discovered in exploring the issues of multi-homing and routing table growth, and as we learned that frequent and rapid renumbering may not be the realities, we seem to need to be a bit cautious about the new world, and not leap to bold conclusions and make radical changes based on yet to be proven assumptions. as isps, in our rush to make life easy for ourselves at the possible expense of other considerations, let us not again demonstrate george santayana's wisdom by repeating history, again creating a swamp, losing track of detailed allocation data, ... as far as i can tell, v6 deployment is not being inhibited by issues surrounding address space allocation. randy

6 10

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: up a few thousand meters
by Randy Bush 14 Feb '02

14 Feb '02

> Agreed. As some of us think it would be a good thing to push IPv6 > onwards, we de-emphasize conservation right now, and emphasize > easy access to address space. this seems to be based on some idea that it is address space policy, as opposed to continuingly changing the policy, which is inhibiting the deployment of v6. this does not seem to be the case. > But let's rethink whether all of our experience is fully appropriate > in changed circumstances. re-thinking is always good. acting before thinking is generally not. randy

2 3

RE: up a few thousand meters
by Lelieveld, Sander 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

Hi all, Please can you put "[GLOBAL-V6]" or something in Subject field. Regards, Sander Lelieveld Alcatel Netherlands. -----Original Message----- From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi] Sent: dinsdag 12 februari 2002 13:13 To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net; Randy Bush Subject: Re: up a few thousand meters On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > - V6 per-se does *not at all* solve the routing (table) problem > That's true in a technical sense. However, there are a few reasons why we, even though IPv6 does not solve the problem, _can_ solve it: 1) organizations, however large, can be represented by one "dot", a /48. This enables us, at worst, to have O(organizations) routing table entries, not O(organizations * average number of nodes per organization). The former is too big still, but it is still good news and makes aggregation and address space estimations easier. 2) it's all new protocol -- not a win as such, but due to this, we can _reinvent_ the routing system (within some restrictions) the way we see fit, based on earlier experience. Let's not pretend 2) does not exist. There are 6bone routing guidelines, which have been happily adapted by production operators (sTLA) also; they prevent most of the problems we're now facing with IPv4 global routing table growth. Why toss all of that aboard, pretending we cannot work around the routing problem for now when moving to IPv6 (note: I didn't say IPv6 would magically solve the problem!)? -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

1 0

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] up a few thousand meters
by Randy Bush 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

apocrypha can be misleading > As far as I can tell, v6 deployment in the ARIN region is not taking > place due to desinterest. > > The APNIC people have very clearly stated at R40 (at least) their need > for a workable interim policy, and there is still none. They are > building production IPv6 networks today. come to ietf in minneapolis, which is still in the arin region as far as i know, where c&w will be the upstream running native v6 on their backbone. [ this is not a side prototype atm network running on bsd/kame or cisco's slow path marketecture, but a full bore, line rate, native v6 enabled backbone ] randy

1 0

Válasz: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: Válasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications?
by turchanyi.geza＠ln.matav.hu 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

Gert, I agree, ONE DAY setting up IPv6 only services MUST be possible. However, I do not think that we can apply this assumption today. Most probably not in the next two years to come. The question here is how to enable the transition period for most of the ISPs as soon as possible, without creating too big mess. If you end up with a heavily scattered address space, then the IPv6 transition is killed before it has been completed. Everybody will have addresses, just the routing will be missing. I do not know how to solve all aspects of this problem, but keeping the number of IPv6 LIRs under control is a MUST, I think. Best, Geza Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> dátum: 2002.02.08 14:46:46 Címzett: Turchányi Géza/PKI/HTC2@HTC2 Másolat: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at>, denesh(a)cyberstrider.net, global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Tárgy: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: Válasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications? Hi, On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 02:17:29PM +0100, turchanyi.geza(a)ln.matav.hu wrote: > 1, I do not think that it is possible to create a brand new ISP without IPv4 > experience, therefore my suggestion is not a restriction for a real ISP, just > for the virtual ones. It MUST be possible if we want IPv6 to be a success. It's to be assumed that the employees of this company will have IPv4 experience (of course), but that doesn't mean the company has a track record of "having been IPv4 LIR for xx years". > 2, It is not mandatory to create a LIR In order to provide an IP service. An > other LIR can provide a service for you. But for those cases, this whole discussion does not apply. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71770 (72395) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 - - This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo(a)lists.apnic.net

2 1

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by CJ Wittbrodt 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

Arano-san, First I'd like to respond to your last sentence, your English is just fine... thanks for the thoughtful note. I have one comment (see below) At 09:52 02/02/07, CJ Wittbrodt wrote: >Maybe we should look at the people you refer to as wanting to be "in" >and figure out what distinguishes them from just some end user who >should have a /48 from their upstream...? Yes, this is the point. I basically supports RIPE's consensus. First, requiring 776 customer sites as criteria of getting /32 is a too high barrier and should be relaxed in any way. Maybe, anyone can agree with this so far. Next, "any LIR can get /32 until 2000 /32 per a region" is almost OK, but one problem may be to use the existing definition(s) of "LIR" mainly defined for IPv4. In ARIN region, you can become a LIR if you pay some money as far as I heard. This may include an large enterprise. One concern here is that this rule will give /32 end users even if they are large enterprise. We should avoid this as Thomas suggested. In the ARIN region, it is true, anyone can become a member of ARIN by paying a fee. to get address space, however, you have to give quite a lot of justification. Every ARIN member does not have address space. I just want to make sure that's clear. I am a member of ARIN as an individual. I paid $500 for the year 2002. I have no address space and I am not what you'd call an LIR. ---CJ

3 2

RE: How to reduce the junk applications?
by turchanyi.geza＠ln.matav.hu 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

Tim, I am sure that there is a misunderstanding here. I never proposed anything that would limit the IPv6 address allocations to any organisation. What I said, however, that address assignement need some experiences - even if there are "plenty addresses"; those wanted to have IPv6 address should go to an experienced LIR; and anyhow, IPv6 networking is not a turnkey issue. Probably we need another two years for that. LIR not equal to an ISP. Best, Geza Tim Chown <tjc(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> dátum: 2002.02.11 12:54:48 Címzett: Turchányi Géza/PKI/HTC2@HTC2 Másolat: Denesh Bhabuta <denesh(a)cyberstrider.net>, "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at>, global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Tárgy: Re: Válasz: Re: Válasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications? On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 turchanyi.geza(a)ln.matav.hu wrote: > 2, You might heard about big research initiatives for the introduction of IPv6 > service. A good example is 6net. > > 6NET will have initially its own infrastructure, and there is a good reason > behind: it would be too risky to use a production network. > > This is not the eventual address allocation restriction that will stop new > IPv6-only companies to pop up, but the basic limitations of the technology and > the installed services. I disagree; if 6NET were a commercial project, not a EC-funded research and development project, we would want IPv6 address space. With your rules, we could not get it, which is very bad. Likewise with the Euro6IX project, where the partners are predominantly telcos rather than NRENs. Tim

2 1

Válasz: Re: Válasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications?
by turchanyi.geza＠ln.matav.hu 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

Denesh, The most probably you know the answers ;-) 1, We applied restrictions on IPv4 LIRs. This is "the slow start mechanism". Restrictions are not for themself. The goal of hardening the life of a new LIR was just to filter off a half million students, that might want to create a LIR, just to decorate their business card. There are many-many small business unit that may pay the fees to become a registry, however, not able to provide a service that realy need a LIR. Too many LIR is against routability. I would not recommend an address allocation strategy that kills the network. Today some ISPs filters IPv4 /24 announcements - if we are not careful with IPv6 LIRs, we will end up of filtering of the minimum allocation to a LIR. Therefore I recommend to think about the network as a whole. I like the liberty however I do not like the mess. 2, You might heard about big research initiatives for the introduction of IPv6 service. A good example is 6net. 6NET will have initially its own infrastructure, and there is a good reason behind: it would be too risky to use a production network. This is not the eventual address allocation restriction that will stop new IPv6-only companies to pop up, but the basic limitations of the technology and the installed services. Applying restrictions in the transition period is better than creating a mess. Best, Geza Denesh Bhabuta <denesh(a)cyberstrider.net> dďż˝tum: 2002.02.08 14:23:35 Kďż˝rem, vďż˝laszoljon Cďż˝mzett Denesh Bhabuta <denesh(a)cyberstrider.net> Cďż˝mzett: Turchďż˝nyi Gďż˝za/PKI/HTC2@HTC2 Mďż˝solat: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at>, global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Tďż˝rgy: Re: Vďż˝lasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications? On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 02:17:29PM +0100, turchanyi.geza(a)ln.matav.hu (turchanyi.geza(a)ln.matav.hu) wrote: Re: Vďż˝lasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications? > 1, I do not think that it is possible to create a brand new ISP without IPv4 > experience, therefore my suggestion is not a restriction for a real ISP, just > for the virtual ones. I disagree on two points Firstly, what is an ISP (real or virtual) - define one. Secondly, IPv4 experience? What experience? registry experience, transport experience, network harware experience? what about those 'new' ISPs that have employed the services of, or even recruited, a person who had 10 years IPv4 experience. Company is new.. but the experience is old.. who are we to say that an ISP is experienced or not? -- Denesh Bhabuta Cyberstrider Limited - www.cyberstrider.net Aexiomus Limited - www.aexiomus.net - Computer shop now live me.uk domains released - http://www.cyberstrider.net/meuk.shtml

2 1

Válasz: Re: Válasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications?
by turchanyi.geza＠ln.matav.hu 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

Denesh, The most probably you know the answers ;-) 1, We applied restrictions on IPv4 LIRs. This is "the slow start mechanism". Restrictions are not for themself. The goal of hardening the life of a new LIR was just to filter off a half million students, that might want to create a LIR, just to decorate their business card. There are many-many small business unit that may pay the fees to become a registry, however, not able to provide a service that realy need a LIR. Too many LIR is against routability. I would not recommend an address allocation strategy that kills the network. Today some ISPs filters IPv4 /24 announcements - if we are not careful with IPv6 LIRs, we will end up of filtering of the minimum allocation to a IPv6 LIR. Therefore I recommend to think about the network as a whole. I like the liberty however I do not like the mess. 2, You might heard about big research initiatives for the introduction of IPv6 service. A good example is 6net. 6NET will have initially its own infrastructure, and there is a good reason behind: it would be too risky to use a production network. This is not the eventual address allocation restriction that will stop new IPv6-only companies to pop up, but the basic limitations of the technology and the installed services. Applying restrictions in the transition period is better than creating a mess. Best, Geza Denesh Bhabuta <denesh(a)cyberstrider.net> dďż˝tum: 2002.02.08 14:23:35 Kďż˝rem, vďż˝laszoljon Cďż˝mzett Denesh Bhabuta <denesh(a)cyberstrider.net> Cďż˝mzett: Turchďż˝nyi Gďż˝za/PKI/HTC2@HTC2 Mďż˝solat: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at>, global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Tďż˝rgy: Re: Vďż˝lasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications? On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 02:17:29PM +0100, turchanyi.geza(a)ln.matav.hu (turchanyi.geza(a)ln.matav.hu) wrote: Re: Vďż˝lasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications? > 1, I do not think that it is possible to create a brand new ISP without IPv4 > experience, therefore my suggestion is not a restriction for a real ISP, just > for the virtual ones. I disagree on two points Firstly, what is an ISP (real or virtual) - define one. Secondly, IPv4 experience? What experience? registry experience, transport experience, network harware experience? what about those 'new' ISPs that have employed the services of, or even recruited, a person who had 10 years IPv4 experience. Company is new.. but the experience is old.. who are we to say that an ISP is experienced or not? -- Denesh Bhabuta Cyberstrider Limited - www.cyberstrider.net Aexiomus Limited - www.aexiomus.net - Computer shop now live me.uk domains released - http://www.cyberstrider.net/meuk.shtml

1 0

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by CJ Wittbrodt 09 Feb '02

09 Feb '02

Brian, I realize that there is what we consider to be a huge amount of v6 address space. What you have to understand though is that you have a bunch of folks who are living day to day with the last time the powers that be decided that we had more address space than we could possible use. They gave out A's and B's and they too thought that there was more than we could possibly ever use. Now the registries (ARIN in particular) spends a lot of time trying to figure out how to reclaim that space. There are a lot of folks who feel that we're repeating old mistakes. Note also that if there are no justifications required to get a /32 except becoming what RIPE calls an LIR (this term varies from region to region), this means that it won't be long before folks there are many many small multihomed sites that have these blocks. Mirjam said herself in the meeting that the reason that RIPE has justification stuff required for V4 blocks now is because folks had figured this out and started getting LIR space just because they're multihimed. It isn't like we're starting from scratch here, folks are pretty sophistocated these days. Further since the actual methods of handing out the space vary from region to region it means that there may be more hurdles than just becoming an LIR. For example, in the RIPE region, when you get a block you can announce the whole block, but you have to ask permission to actually use each subnet (no matter how small). Of course their v6 policy may be different, who knows. This is not the same way that it works in all regions. Unless you get space from all three (soon to be 4) it is difficult to really understand the subtle differences. It wasn't my intent to argue this here, it was just my intent to point out that I doubted that this policy would reach consensus in all regions because of the past history. I misinterpreted the original note as a submission of changes for the document. I thought it was premature to make changes at this point. I am glad that wasn't the intent of the note. We'll see what happens. As Anne said (thanks Anne!) the APNIC meeting is coming up. The ARIN policy meeting is in April. Thanks! ---CJ From: Brian E Carpenter <brian(a)hursley.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy Cathy, I'm still quite surprised by the way in which the fully justified conservatism of the registries for IPv4 space is being over-extrapolated to IPv6 space. If you look objectively at the argument that Gert gives, and consider how the size of the IPv6 prefix space compares to the total IPv4 space, /32 just isn't risky, and it gets rid of yet another judgement call. (I wasn't at the RIPE meeting either, but I did hear Mirjam talk on this topic yesterday.) Brian CJ Wittbrodt wrote: > > Since the events of the recent RIPE working group meeting have not > been discussed at either of the other regional policy forums, > proposing something here may be somewhat premature. I do not believe, > although things never cease to amaze me, that this will reach any sort > of consensus within the ARIN region. I am not sure about the APNIC > region. Based on some meetings with the European Government > Advisory Council (just after the RIPE meeting) it is clear that it is > important that we have a global policy. Is there maybe some way > that we could come up with a compromise that would reach consensus > in all three policy forums? Something other than requiring no > justification for a /32? > > Thanks > ---CJ Wittbrodt > (ARIN Advisory Council and ASO Address Council member) > > From: Gert Doering <gert(a)Space.Net> > Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assig >>nment > >>Global Policy > Hi, > > from your comments, I gather you have not been to the RIPE IPv6/LIR > policy meeting. So let's add a few comments (while waiting for James > Aldridge to publish the "official" word on it): > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:50:38PM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote: > > > 5.2.1. Initial allocation criteria > [..] > > The goal was to give a site a /32 if it can justify it will use > > it. The word "immediately" (as in demonstrate an immediate need) is > [..] > > So the real issue here (and this comes up again in later parts of the > > document) is what is a reasonable way to objectively evaluate a > > request for address space that requires some guessing as to whether a > > proposed plan will actually be carried out. If the time frame is too > > long, it becomes easy to make optimistic plans that won't pan out, and > > then the RIRs get into a different problem. > > Consensus on the IPv6/LIR policy meeting was "drop the criteria". > > To be precise, I proposed the following: > > - any LIR that is established (has done all the paperwork, paid their > fees, and whatnot) and can document the need for one IPv6 address > can get a /32. No further justification required. > > - to avoid a horrible mistake, every region is permitted to allow only > assigment of 2000 /32s per region. So the maximum wastage is 6000 > /32s (out of 500 million /32s in the 1/8th of the space we're talking > about), and 6000 additional routes. > After that, we're going to reconsider policy. > > There was concern from the other regional registries (ARIN and APNIC), > but broad consensus from the people from the RIPE region. > > Reasoning (shortened): > > - why are we putting criteria there? To keep out "some that we do not > want". Conservation is not an issue. Routing table growth might > be influenced by this, or might be not, we don't know. > > - do we want major national research networks connecting something like > "50 universities"? YES > > - will this research network meet any criteria based on "you must use up > a big number of /48s, otherwise you can't get a /32"? NO, if you > assign a /48 per university (which would be plenty!), because that > means "you can only demonstrate a need for 50 /48s" > > On the other hand, if you say "I connect lots of private customers > over DSL lines, using fixed IP addresses, giving each user a /48 (which > is OK according to IETF guidelines)", reaching over 50 /48s is very > easy. > > Does this mean the second example is "more worthy" to get a /32? Does > it mean they will make "better use" of it? > > So all technical criteria based on /48 usage must fail, and criteria > based on single IP usage will fail as well (due to the /48 rule). If we > can't propose criteria that work, drop them - BUT limit the amount of > damage that can be done. > > [..] > > Or is it the 776 end site figure (i.e., too high)? > > Think of the research networks. One /48 per university would be > "according to the /48 rule: each SITE gets a /48". > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71770 (72395) > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 >

5 6

Válasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications?
by turchanyi.geza＠ln.matav.hu 08 Feb '02

08 Feb '02

Wilfried and Denesh, My I have two points? 1, I do not think that it is possible to create a brand new ISP without IPv4 experience, therefore my suggestion is not a restriction for a real ISP, just for the virtual ones. 2, It is not mandatory to create a LIR In order to provide an IP service. An other LIR can provide a service for you. Cheers, Geza P.S. BTW, do you know any CERT service for IPv6? There will be many, many things that should be worked out before there will be real IPv6 service in life. We might need a two years very hactic transition period. "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at> dátum: 2002.02.07 19:50:20 Címzett: global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net Másolat: woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at (Vakmásolat: Turchányi Géza/PKI/HTC2) Tárgy: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications? >My proposal is simple: only such a LIR should get IPv6 addresses in 2002 and >2003 that already had experiences in IPv4 registration for at least two years. Do you really want to propose to force "new kids on the block", intending to deploy IPv6 _from the beginning_, to spend money, human resources, etc. to build and operate a "disposable v4 network" for 2 years, in order to obtain IPv6 addresses?? How would they document the need for IPv*4* addresses when they intend to build an IPv*6* network?? I'm getting more and more puzzled by the amount of creativity people come up with, simply in order to make deployment of IPv6 *difficult*! Till now I thought that people have been working on IPv6 as a better alternative, and that everyone going for IPv6 would help the v4 address space to last longer. Looks like I was wrong. Well, honestly, I think we need a reality check break. Regards, Wilfried. Zu Tode gefuerchtet ist auch gestorben! (Apologies to the non-German-literate readers) - - This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo(a)lists.apnic.net

3 2

How to reduce the junk applications?
by turchanyi.geza＠ln.matav.hu 08 Feb '02

08 Feb '02

Bob, the question here is the following: How to avoid that a boom of (virtual) LIRs destroys the whole Internet Registry structure? My proposal is simple: only such a LIR should get IPv6 addresses in 2002 and 2003 that already had experiences in IPv4 registration for at least two years. This might sound very restrictive, however it is better to start something new with people already having some experiences than creating a situation that we can not handle later on. In two years we can have lift this constraint. Best regards, Geza Turchanyi Bob Hinden <hinden(a)IPRG.nokia.com> dátum: 2002.02.06 20:20:49 Címzett: Gert Doering <gert(a)Space.Net> Másolat: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp(a)hilander.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian(a)hursley.ibm.com>, Thomas Narten <narten(a)us.ibm.com>, Stuart Prevost <stuart.prevost(a)btinternet.com>, global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net (Vakmásolat: Turchányi Géza/PKI/HTC2) Tárgy: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy Gert, >In that 1/8th, we have 500 million /32s. I proposed to give out 2000 of >them per region. So roughly this is 0.001 per cent of the available >/32s in the 1/8ths that we're currently using. > >Yes, I vote for "let's waste that 0.001 per cent", and then reconsider. I think this is a good approach. To compare with the IPv4 history, many of the early allocations in IPv4 were the old Class A prefixes. Each Class-A prefix consumed 0.391% of the total IPv4 address space. To compare with the new IPv6 registry proposal, each IPv6 /32 prefix consumes 0.000000186% of the total IPv6 address space. This is roughly equivalent to the amount of address space used by a /29 prefix allocation in the IPv4 space. Bob - - This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo(a)lists.apnic.net

2 1

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by CJ Wittbrodt 08 Feb '02

08 Feb '02

Hi. Yes. But then they need an upstream provider that is willing to announce a single-homed customer /32 - which might just be much more expensive than giving the end site a /48 of their space. Which I could imagine as a way to let market regulate whether someone "needs" their own /32. Sure if ISPs are willing to filter them. If there are lots of them and they aren't aggregatable then the filters will be long. I suspect they'll end up being the swamp and everyone will end up carrying them even if they don't want to. History repeats itself on many levels... I am truly convinced that we can NOT solve the "I want to be independent" problem at registry level (or at least "not without doing real harm to some of the people we want to be 'in'"). Adding a rule like "you get a /32 only if you're multihomed" will make things worse, because "they" will then get a /32 *and* an AS number. I agree. But we're not currently saying that you get a /32 if you're multihomed, we're saying that you get a /32 if you're willing to pay money. How about you get a /32 if you can justify at least some reasonable level of utilization? That could be that you currently have a minimum allocation of IPv4 space from a registry already. It could be any number of things probably less restrictive than what was on the table until recently. Then sure you can get one of you are whoever, but at least you have some real justification for having a block from a registry and not your upstream. Maybe we should look at the people you refer to as wanting to be "in" and figure out what distinguishes them from just some end user who should have a /48 from their upstream...? ---CJ

3 3

How to reduce the junk applications?
by turchanyi.geza＠ln.matav.hu 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

Bob, the question here is the following: How to avoid that a boom of (virtual) LIRs destroys the whole Internet Registry structure? My proposal is simple: only such a LIR should get IPv6 addresses in 2002 and 2003 that already had experiences in IPv4 registration for at least two years. This might sound very restrictive, however it is better to start something new with people already having some experiences than creating a situation that we can not handle later on. In two years we can have lift this constraint. Best regards, Geza Turchanyi Bob Hinden <hinden(a)IPRG.nokia.com> dátum: 2002.02.06 20:20:49 Címzett: Gert Doering <gert(a)Space.Net> Másolat: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp(a)hilander.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian(a)hursley.ibm.com>, Thomas Narten <narten(a)us.ibm.com>, Stuart Prevost <stuart.prevost(a)btinternet.com>, global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net (Vakmásolat: Turchányi Géza/PKI/HTC2) Tárgy: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy Gert, >In that 1/8th, we have 500 million /32s. I proposed to give out 2000 of >them per region. So roughly this is 0.001 per cent of the available >/32s in the 1/8ths that we're currently using. > >Yes, I vote for "let's waste that 0.001 per cent", and then reconsider. I think this is a good approach. To compare with the IPv4 history, many of the early allocations in IPv4 were the old Class A prefixes. Each Class-A prefix consumed 0.391% of the total IPv4 address space. To compare with the new IPv6 registry proposal, each IPv6 /32 prefix consumes 0.000000186% of the total IPv6 address space. This is roughly equivalent to the amount of address space used by a /29 prefix allocation in the IPv4 space. Bob - - This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo(a)lists.apnic.net

1 0

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by CJ Wittbrodt 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

Hi, On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 02:25:46PM -0800, CJ Wittbrodt wrote: > It is a figure that is "large enough that nearly every active LIR today > can get an IPv6 allocation NOW" (having somewhat over 3000 LIRs in RIPE > land, of which some are not active any more, others have merged, and so > on), while at the other hand being small enough so that *if* this > turns out to be a mistake, it means "6000 'IPv6 swamp' prefixes in the > global routing table", and this is something the routers can handle. > > I just want to be clear. My understanding of what happened in the > meeting wasn't that each existing LIR could get one, but anyone who > became an LIR could get one. This means that existing LIRs can > indeed get one, but so can anyone who is willing to become an LIR. > That was my understanding. Yes, this is what was agreed upon. Every LIR, no matter whether old or new, could get a /32 by asking for it. I do not think that this will lead to a "land rush" on /32s (to answer that concern en passant). Why should it? What's the benefit for an end site? It gives them a provider block that won't be filtered. If they're multihomed this is a benefit. Most of the companies that want to be "independent" will find one way or the other to achieve this - either by announcing /48s all over the region and possibly the world, or by opening a LIR, or by claiming they want to be soooo multihomed (and maybe setting up a peering with some other "independent" company to prove it). We have to be able to solve *this* - teach 'em that BGP multihoming with "PI" space is just one of many solutions, and develop more attractive solutions - instead of hindering IPv6 progress any further. Why would they justify or claim anything? They can just become an LIR with no justification and get a /32. ---CJ

1 0

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by CJ Wittbrodt 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

Since the events of the recent RIPE working group meeting have not been discussed at either of the other regional policy forums, proposing something here may be somewhat premature. I do not believe, although things never cease to amaze me, that this will reach any sort of consensus within the ARIN region. I am not sure about the APNIC region. Based on some meetings with the European Government Advisory Council (just after the RIPE meeting) it is clear that it is important that we have a global policy. Is there maybe some way that we could come up with a compromise that would reach consensus in all three policy forums? Something other than requiring no justification for a /32? Thanks ---CJ Wittbrodt (ARIN Advisory Council and ASO Address Council member) From: Gert Doering <gert(a)Space.Net> Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment >>Global Policy Hi, from your comments, I gather you have not been to the RIPE IPv6/LIR policy meeting. So let's add a few comments (while waiting for James Aldridge to publish the "official" word on it): On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:50:38PM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote: > > 5.2.1. Initial allocation criteria [..] > The goal was to give a site a /32 if it can justify it will use > it. The word "immediately" (as in demonstrate an immediate need) is [..] > So the real issue here (and this comes up again in later parts of the > document) is what is a reasonable way to objectively evaluate a > request for address space that requires some guessing as to whether a > proposed plan will actually be carried out. If the time frame is too > long, it becomes easy to make optimistic plans that won't pan out, and > then the RIRs get into a different problem. Consensus on the IPv6/LIR policy meeting was "drop the criteria". To be precise, I proposed the following: - any LIR that is established (has done all the paperwork, paid their fees, and whatnot) and can document the need for one IPv6 address can get a /32. No further justification required. - to avoid a horrible mistake, every region is permitted to allow only assigment of 2000 /32s per region. So the maximum wastage is 6000 /32s (out of 500 million /32s in the 1/8th of the space we're talking about), and 6000 additional routes. After that, we're going to reconsider policy. There was concern from the other regional registries (ARIN and APNIC), but broad consensus from the people from the RIPE region. Reasoning (shortened): - why are we putting criteria there? To keep out "some that we do not want". Conservation is not an issue. Routing table growth might be influenced by this, or might be not, we don't know. - do we want major national research networks connecting something like "50 universities"? YES - will this research network meet any criteria based on "you must use up a big number of /48s, otherwise you can't get a /32"? NO, if you assign a /48 per university (which would be plenty!), because that means "you can only demonstrate a need for 50 /48s" On the other hand, if you say "I connect lots of private customers over DSL lines, using fixed IP addresses, giving each user a /48 (which is OK according to IETF guidelines)", reaching over 50 /48s is very easy. Does this mean the second example is "more worthy" to get a /32? Does it mean they will make "better use" of it? So all technical criteria based on /48 usage must fail, and criteria based on single IP usage will fail as well (due to the /48 rule). If we can't propose criteria that work, drop them - BUT limit the amount of damage that can be done. [..] > Or is it the 776 end site figure (i.e., too high)? Think of the research networks. One /48 per university would be "according to the /48 rule: each SITE gets a /48". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71770 (72395) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 - - This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo(a)lists.apnic.net

4 3

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by Thomas Narten 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

Gert Doering <gert(a)Space.Net> writes: > As for the routing table growth, yes, this is a very tricky problem, > but it cannot be solved at RIR level - the RIRs can not decide who is > an "important ISP" and who is a "less important ISP that should > prevented from having their own networks" (by being forced to use > upstream addresses from "important ISP" - renumbering is fairly easy > for end sites, but a PITA for an ISP plus all his customers). The RIRs may not be able to solve this problem, but they can surely adopt policies that will make it harder if not impossible to solve it. It is this aspect of the apparent proposal in RIPE that I have a BIG problem with. It is far from clear that we have to throw the baby out with the bath water. If folks have issues with the specific policies in the global document, then can we first see if we can fix them in a way that makes sense to all, and doesn't make addressing the routing table growth problem even harder than it already is? Please? Thomas

1 0

RE: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation andAssignment Global Policy
by Ext-Pauli.Wihuri＠nokia.com 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

It has been very interesting to follow your discussion here. Thanks. I know my comments/question may go off topic, but... >On 7 Feb 2002, Robert Kiessling wrote: >>Sorry to ask since I wasn't at the meeting: >>What was said about larger allocation sizes >>than /32, e.g. for multinational ISPs for >>which a /32 does not provide sufficient >>space for reasonable aggregation? On 7 Feb 2002, Tim Chown wrote: >Or for a national provider who may want to >give a static /48 to a few hundred thousand >customers. How much of the address assignment >maths includes static vs dynamic provisioning? Or for a global multinational company (not being ISP/LIR/...) having around the globe offices and sites and multiple public/private network transfer points. Here are the alternatives thought of: a) Introduce one global big enough prefix with hierarchy classes like region/country/city/site/business_unit/function/network_type and reserve space enough to each class AND also requiring optimized routing solution with many! private/public network transfer points. (preferred I guess) b) Applying for different prefix from all regions and introduce geographical address allcoation scheme with those different prefixes from all various regions... (feasible and likely, but not liked) c) Applying for different prefixes from all countries and introduce geographical address allocation scheme with thos hundreds of different prefixes... (no thanks :-) d) Other, what? -- Pauli Wihuri,Nokia,IPv6 network program manager,(external from Hewlett-Packard)

1 0

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by CJ Wittbrodt 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> writes: > Yes. But then they need an upstream provider that is willing to announce > a single-homed customer /32 - which might just be much more expensive than > giving the end site a /48 of their space. Which I could imagine as a > way to let market regulate whether someone "needs" their own /32. Why? If it there was a significat effect of costs on prefix announcement, we wouldn't see the huge number of (pseudo-) PI prefixes in today's table. I don't see a technical difference between announcement of an IPv4 PI /24 and an IPv6 /32 which would imply a significant difference in costs. Thus you will get an upstream for your v6 /32 as easily as now do for your v4 /24. The proposal poses the interesting question of other conditions to becoming LIR apart from costs. Currently RIPE requires a minimum of imediately assigned address space. What if anyone wants to become LIR for IPv6 only? Was this discussed? Yes. If they want to come and get IPv6 only there is no minimum criteria. Only that you become an LIR. Others can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think so. Mirjam specifically talked about how they have a minimum requirement for IPv4 space, but in the beginning they didn't. The requirement now is because folks figured out the "I can get one and not be an ISP" thing. So if you pay your money and become a LIR you get a /32. That's what was proposed. I am sure there are minutes of the meeting by now. Nope, just looked they're not there yet. > "For a limited period (the first 2000 requests in each RIR > region was suggested) > allocate a /32 to ANY LIR requesting their IPv6 allocation > (subject to documentation of first IPv6 assignment) This is what was presented in the working group summary. I wrote it down verbatim off of the overheads. There was a promise of the documentation of the whole discussion. I am sure that's taking a while since it was quite lengthy. Sorry to ask since I wasn't at the meeting: What was said about larger allocation sizes than /32, e.g. for multinational ISPs for which a /32 does not provide sufficient space for reasonable aggregation? That was touched upon, but not really talked about in detail. Anne from APNIC brought it up as one of her concerns. Don't worry about not being at the meeting. The weather was cold and wet. :-) ---CJ

1 0

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by CJ Wittbrodt 06 Feb '02

06 Feb '02

From: Gert Doering <gert(a)Space.Net> Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy Hi, On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:17:41PM +0000, Carlos Friacas wrote: > The following are some of my personal views about it... > > I agree with almost all of Gert's views on this, my only doubt goes to > the "2000 figure". Isnt it a bit small? Why not look at the actual routing > table, and project things a bit further? Why not multiply it by 5 or 6? The figure was not chosen in any highly scientific way. It is a figure that is "large enough that nearly every active LIR today can get an IPv6 allocation NOW" (having somewhat over 3000 LIRs in RIPE land, of which some are not active any more, others have merged, and so on), while at the other hand being small enough so that *if* this turns out to be a mistake, it means "6000 'IPv6 swamp' prefixes in the global routing table", and this is something the routers can handle. I just want to be clear. My understanding of what happened in the meeting wasn't that each existing LIR could get one, but anyone who became an LIR could get one. This means that existing LIRs can indeed get one, but so can anyone who is willing to become an LIR. That was my understanding. ---CJ

1 0

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by CJ Wittbrodt 06 Feb '02

06 Feb '02

Thomas, Comments are below: From: Thomas Narten <narten(a)us.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment >>Global Policy I wasn't at the RIPE meeting, but I do have at least one big concern based on what I heard. > To be precise, I proposed the following: > - any LIR that is established (has done all the paperwork, paid their > fees, and whatnot) and can document the need for one IPv6 address > can get a /32. No further justification required. Does this mean end sites, those that are not transit providers become eligible for a /32? In other words, what is to prevent a land grab on what will largely be perceived as PI IPv6 address blocks? (I heard from someone who was at the meeting that the answer was a clear yes, end sites will be eligible.) I think we would be sending entirely the wrong message if end sites are able to get /32s. I was at the RIPE meeting. The consensus was that anyone willing to become an LIR and pay the fees could get a /32. Certainly within RIPE there are requirements for becoming an LIR, but I don't believe those requirements distinguish between being and end site or whatever. We certainly discussed this at the meeting. There is nothing to prevent an end user from becoming an LIR and getting a /32. Note also that my main concern has much less to do with utilization or how much address space we have (we do have a lot). It has much more to do with having registry policies that are supportive of aggregation of routing information in the long term. This will only happen if most end sites get address space from their providers. Allowing end sites to get big allocations now, will cause nothing but problems later. It risks replaying some of the bad history of IPv4. That's right. > - to avoid a horrible mistake, every region is permitted to allow only > assigment of 2000 /32s per region. So the maximum wastage is 6000 > /32s (out of 500 million /32s in the 1/8th of the space we're talking > about), and 6000 additional routes. > After that, we're going to reconsider policy. And once we have 6000 such /32s allocated, then what? We replay the haves vs. the have nots? Won't there be a lot of pressure then to continue giving out /32s freely, since current router technology supports more than 6K routes, etc.? What makes you think we'll be able to put in more conservative policies at this point? This is definitely an issue. One that folks at the meeting didn't want to hear > - why are we putting criteria there? To keep out "some that we do not > want". Conservation is not an issue. Routing table growth might > be influenced by this, or might be not, we don't know. Having RIR policies that make it harder to have good aggregatability of routes should not be done rashly. It is far easier to take steps now that limit potential problems, than try to reverse poor decisions after the fact. Yup. > - do we want major national research networks connecting something like > "50 universities"? YES So, can we come up with alternate criteria that support giving /32s to such entities that doesn't also allow just anyone to get a /32? This desire seems reasonable to me. But the proposed solution seems to gone way beyond what was needed, and has some real down sides. That was attempted to be proposed. I'd like to see this group come up with something more than just pay the fee and get a block. A portable no aggregatable block. Further, the way blocks are being handed out now they aren't geographically aggregatable either. So each registry just peels off the next block. There aren't blocks per registry. > Who are the ones that we want to keep out anyway? Why? To achieve what? End sites. If every end site gets its own /32, we will have another routing disaster. So much for IPv6 learning from the IPv4 experience. Well the argument is that they'll never come back for more. This means (believe me this isn't my argument) that the routing table should be smaller because everyone will only have one prefix. There are only as many multi-homed sites as there are ASNs, right? Anyway, this is an argument that I have heard proposed. Please remember it isn't my argument. ----CJ

1 0

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by Thomas Narten 06 Feb '02

06 Feb '02

I wasn't at the RIPE meeting, but I do have at least one big concern based on what I heard. > To be precise, I proposed the following: > - any LIR that is established (has done all the paperwork, paid their > fees, and whatnot) and can document the need for one IPv6 address > can get a /32. No further justification required. Does this mean end sites, those that are not transit providers become eligible for a /32? In other words, what is to prevent a land grab on what will largely be perceived as PI IPv6 address blocks? (I heard from someone who was at the meeting that the answer was a clear yes, end sites will be eligible.) I think we would be sending entirely the wrong message if end sites are able to get /32s. Note also that my main concern has much less to do with utilization or how much address space we have (we do have a lot). It has much more to do with having registry policies that are supportive of aggregation of routing information in the long term. This will only happen if most end sites get address space from their providers. Allowing end sites to get big allocations now, will cause nothing but problems later. It risks replaying some of the bad history of IPv4. > - to avoid a horrible mistake, every region is permitted to allow only > assigment of 2000 /32s per region. So the maximum wastage is 6000 > /32s (out of 500 million /32s in the 1/8th of the space we're talking > about), and 6000 additional routes. > After that, we're going to reconsider policy. And once we have 6000 such /32s allocated, then what? We replay the haves vs. the have nots? Won't there be a lot of pressure then to continue giving out /32s freely, since current router technology supports more than 6K routes, etc.? What makes you think we'll be able to put in more conservative policies at this point? > - why are we putting criteria there? To keep out "some that we do not > want". Conservation is not an issue. Routing table growth might > be influenced by this, or might be not, we don't know. Having RIR policies that make it harder to have good aggregatability of routes should not be done rashly. It is far easier to take steps now that limit potential problems, than try to reverse poor decisions after the fact. > - do we want major national research networks connecting something like > "50 universities"? YES So, can we come up with alternate criteria that support giving /32s to such entities that doesn't also allow just anyone to get a /32? This desire seems reasonable to me. But the proposed solution seems to gone way beyond what was needed, and has some real down sides. > Who are the ones that we want to keep out anyway? Why? To achieve what? End sites. If every end site gets its own /32, we will have another routing disaster. So much for IPv6 learning from the IPv4 experience. Thomas

1 0

BOUNCE global-v6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [David Kessens <david@iprg.nokia.com>] Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 9
by owner-global-v6＠lists.apnic.net 06 Feb '02

06 Feb '02

Return-Path: <anne(a)apnic.net> Received: from cumin.apnic.net (cumin.apnic.net [202.12.29.59]) by data.staff.apnic.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g16J3PX13501 for <global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net>; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:03:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhost.iprg.nokia.com (mailhost.iprg.nokia.com [205.226.5.12]) by cumin.apnic.net (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g16J0XKa030195 for <global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net>; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:00:34 +1000 Received: from darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (darkstar.iprg.nokia.com [205.226.5.69]) by mailhost.iprg.nokia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3-GLGS) with ESMTP id LAA00250; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:05:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (8.11.0/8.11.0-DARKSTAR) id g16J5ae26718; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:05:36 -0800 X-mProtect: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:05:36 -0800 Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging Protection Received: from david.iprg.nokia.com (4.22.78.79, claiming to be "iprg.nokia.com") by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com smtpd6B5WaC; Wed, 06 Feb 2002 11:05:34 PST Received: (from david@localhost) by iprg.nokia.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g16J7d327077; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:07:39 -0800 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:07:39 -0800 From: David Kessens <david(a)iprg.nokia.com> To: global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: crossposting to multiple lists Message-ID: <20020206110738.D26988(a)iprg.nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.1 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Just a short request: It would be appreciated if global ipv6 policies are being discussed on the global policy list only. Please don't CC the RIPE ipv6 working group maillist. A reminder to the people on the RIPE ipv6 wg maillist: if you want to take part in the global policy discussions, please subscribe to the global policy maillist (global-v6-request(a)lists.apnic.net) if you haven't done so already. Thanks :-), David K. ---

1 0

RE: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by Gordon.Lennox＠cec.eu.int 06 Feb '02

06 Feb '02

My apologies. I sometimes I think I need a sig-block!<g> I was at the meeting too, on the Friday afternoon. I am a frequent attendee at RIPE and I have participated in several meetings of the "informal group", or to give it perhaps its full title "Internet: informal working group", here in Brussels. I was just trying to clear up a possible misunderstanding, to avoid a lot of people looking for the "European Government Advisory Council". You would be surprised how often people call here asking strange questions!<g> Kind regards, Gordon Lennox Internet-related Services Directorate: Communications Services - Policy and Regulatory Framework Directorate-General: Information Society European Commission -----Original Message----- From: packetgrrl(a)palm.com [mailto:packetgrrl@palm.com] Sent: 06 February 2002 18:37 To: LENNOX Gordon (INFSO); cjw(a)groovy.com; gert(a)Space.Net Cc: narten(a)us.ibm.com; stuart.prevost(a)btinternet.com; global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: RE: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy Gordon Call it whatever you want. I was at a meeting with them. The ASO address council (I am a member) met with them. I was just referring to the group as the other folks did. Anyway based on the mtg I was at, it is very clear they are expecting global policy -- CJ --- This email was sent from my Palm(TM) i705 handheld (www.palm.com)

1 0