Re: IPv6 request form for Internet Exchange Points
Nurani, On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 09:38:48AM +0200, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
Following the consensus reached in the community on assigning IPv6 address space to Internet Exchange Points, the RIPE NCC is now starting to make IPv6 assignments to requesting Internet Exchange Points.
We don't really think that consensus has been reached yet. We have discussed lot's of details at the mailing list, but the community at large did not have a chance yet to approve a final proposal. As chairpeople of two of the respective working groups, we asked the RIPE NCC to schedule a slot at the next meeting in order to have a final discussion regarding this very topic. We invite you to do a presentation on the next meeting of what you think that the status of the discussion is so far and to send a document to the mailing list some time before the meeting that describes the proposed policy based on the input from the discussions that we had on the mailing list.
From there, we the chairpeople can ask the RIPE community at the next meeting whether they approve and possibly make some small adjustments or whether we have to go back to the drawing board and need more discussion.
We would like to ask you to suspend the proposed policy until we have had a chance to ask the RIPE community for approval. Meanwhile we suggest that discussion continues on the LIR-WG list. Thanks, Fearghas McKay, chairperson eix wg David Kessens, chairperson ipv6 wg At 9:38 am +0200 17/8/01, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
Dear all,
Following the consensus reached in the community on assigning IPv6 address space to Internet Exchange Points, the RIPE NCC is now starting to make IPv6 assignments to requesting Internet Exchange Points.
A specific request form has been created for this purpose, "IPv6 Request Form for Internet Exchange Points" which can be obtained at the RIPE document store at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6request-exchangepoint.html
Pending requestors will be asked to complete this form in order to receive an IPv6 assignment from the RIPE NCC.
We wish to thank all participants of this discussion for the constructive input in this matter.
Kind regards,
Nurani Nimpuno
*--------------------------------------------------------* | Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@ripe.net> | | Internet Address Policy Manager | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | | http://www.ripe.net | *--------------------------------------------------------*
Fearghas McKay writes:
We don't really think that consensus has been reached yet. We have discussed lot's of details at the mailing list, but the community at large did not have a chance yet to approve a final proposal.
Erm, the community did have many chances to disapprove, and in the end only mostly minor details were still discussed, apart from voices which would like to have allocations made to exchanges. If that's really wanted, then this path is still open, but that would take more effort.
As chairpeople of two of the respective working groups, we asked the RIPE NCC to schedule a slot at the next meeting in order to have a final discussion regarding this very topic.
And then there's a summary on the mailing list, and then some more exchange on the mailing ist, and then again some discussion on the next meeting ... This has gone on for too long already, and many people want to see it implemented and get started. The issue is nothing fundamental - it's basically that RIPE itself does what anyone else could do, to assign address space to IXPs.
We would like to ask you to suspend the proposed policy until we have had a chance to ask the RIPE community for approval.
Please don't! Robert
Robert Kiessling wrote:
This has gone on for too long already, and many people want to see it implemented and get started. The issue is nothing fundamental - it's basically that RIPE itself does what anyone else could do, to assign address space to IXPs.
I completely agree. We are in a situation where the only reason for us *not* to be switching v6 traffic is this application process - we have customers who *want* the service - to say this is frustrating is an understatement.
We would like to ask you to suspend the proposed policy until we have had a chance to ask the RIPE community for approval.
Please don't!
Agreed!!! I understand the need to ensure complete consensus regarding allocation, but *please* can we aim for a temporary work around to allow us to get an allocation using the existing document. We could review the interim allocations once the consensus is finally reached, and supply any new information then _if_ needed. But as Robert says, this has gone on far too long already! Regards, Steve.
Hi, On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 01:18:18PM +0100, Steve Walker wrote:
Robert Kiessling wrote:
This has gone on for too long already, and many people want to see it implemented and get started. The issue is nothing fundamental - it's basically that RIPE itself does what anyone else could do, to assign address space to IXPs.
I completely agree. We are in a situation where the only reason for us *not* to be switching v6 traffic is this application process - we have customers who *want* the service - to say this is frustrating is an understatement.
Seconded for DECIX in Germany. We're now using addresses from SpaceNet's IPv6 block, but this is something that can only be a workaround. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Steve, On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 01:18:18PM +0100, Steve Walker wrote:
We would like to ask you to suspend the proposed policy until we have had a chance to ask the RIPE community for approval.
Please don't!
Agreed!!! I understand the need to ensure complete consensus regarding allocation, but *please* can we aim for a temporary work around to allow us to get an allocation using the existing document.
We could review the interim allocations once the consensus is finally reached, and supply any new information then _if_ needed. But as Robert says, this has gone on far too long already!
Please don't get us wrong. We are not aiming for complete consensus. The problem that we had was that we didn't had a final proposal submitted to the mailing list. We did have a draft and lot's of comments. What we usualy do in this kind of situations is that RIPE NCC submits a final proposal to the workinggroup that incorporates the comments. The working group then gets a final chance to voice major objections, and if no major problems are uncovered, the policy becomes effective and gets published as a RIPE document (there is a RIPE document for the request form but no document that describes the actual policy on how you will be judged when you submit a request). The problem this time was that there was no final proposal on the list with the actual policy and I didn't see a RIPE document either. We didn't feel that this is a good way to introduce new policy. We already asked for a slot on the next RIPE meeting for closure on this topic. However, we have heard your comments loud and clear :-) so we are working with the RIPE NCC to get a final proposal out much quicker and get approval from the community by asking for approval on the mailing list before the next meeting. I hope that addresses your concerns. David K. ---
David, David Kessens wrote:
We already asked for a slot on the next RIPE meeting for closure on this topic. However, we have heard your comments loud and clear :-)
Hope I wasen`t too noisy!
so we are working with the RIPE NCC to get a final proposal out much quicker and get approval from the community by asking for approval on the mailing list before the next meeting.
We greatly appreciate these efforts, and understand the need to stick to procedure. Look forward to the final proposal going through. Regards, Steve.
David, David Kessens wrote:
We already asked for a slot on the next RIPE meeting for closure on this topic. However, we have heard your comments loud and clear :-) so we are working with the RIPE NCC to get a final proposal out much quicker and get approval from the community by asking for approval on the mailing list before the next meeting.
Could you indicate when the final proposal is going to be submitted to the mailing list? Thanks, Steve.
| Agreed!!! I understand the need to ensure complete consensus regarding | allocation, but *please* can we aim for a temporary work around to allow | us to get an allocation using the existing document. | | We could review the interim allocations once the consensus is finally | reached, and supply any new information then _if_ needed. But as Robert | says, this has gone on far too long already! Would this be a way to proceede; introduce the procedure proposed by Nurani as an interim procedure in order to get this thing rolling ? Nothing is worse than technology and customers waiting for politicians to make up their mind... -hph
| As chairpeople of two of the respective working groups, we asked the RIPE NCC | to schedule a slot at the next meeting in order to have a final | discussion regarding this very topic. Maybe it would have helped avoiding this unfortunate situation if the chairpersons in questions (me beeing one of them) had shared this intention with the respective mailinglists in the form of a draft agenda or some such at an earlier time... -hph
participants (6)
-
David Kessens -
Fearghas McKay -
Gert Doering -
Hans Petter Holen -
Robert Kiessling -
Steve Walker