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

RE: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by packetgrrl＠palm.com 06 Feb '02

06 Feb '02

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) Gordon.Lennox(a)cec.eu.int wrote: __________ >"European Government Advisory Council"? I don't think that such a thing >exists. > >There was a meeting with the so-called "informal group" - a group of EU >Member State officials with an interest in Internet matters - on the Friday >of the RIPE meeting. They then met with a number of people from RIPE NCC, >ICANN, ARIN, APNIC, IETF, etc.. on the Friday afternoon. > >The confusion may come from the fact that some of the participants in the >"informal gropup" also participate in the GAC, the ICANN Government Advisory >Committee (see http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/) > >Gordon Lennox > >-----Original Message----- >From: CJ Wittbrodt [mailto:cjw@groovy.com] >Sent: 05 February 2002 23:55 >To: Gert Doering >Cc: Thomas Narten; Stuart Prevost; 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 > > > >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 > >/snip..... >

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

"European Government Advisory Council"? I don't think that such a thing exists. There was a meeting with the so-called "informal group" - a group of EU Member State officials with an interest in Internet matters - on the Friday of the RIPE meeting. They then met with a number of people from RIPE NCC, ICANN, ARIN, APNIC, IETF, etc.. on the Friday afternoon. The confusion may come from the fact that some of the participants in the "informal gropup" also participate in the GAC, the ICANN Government Advisory Committee (see http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/) Gordon Lennox -----Original Message----- From: CJ Wittbrodt [mailto:cjw@groovy.com] Sent: 05 February 2002 23:55 To: Gert Doering Cc: Thomas Narten; Stuart Prevost; 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 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 /snip.....

1 0

Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by Gert Doering 05 Feb '02

05 Feb '02

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

1 0