-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 29.08.2012 11:05, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 03:06:08AM +0200, Michael Markstaller wrote:
Just my 2ct: not any University or worse religous campaign should block a /8 or /16 without having to state HERE&NOW why and for what they really need&use it. They need exactly 1 IP for every 65536 concurrently active student to NAT and 1 for each public service at most, lets put a /22 for infra on top and then we're fine..
This is not how the old Internet used to work, and it is not how it works today - nobody is forced to use NAT by the RIRs, and that's how it must be (*and* it has nothing to do with the question of ERX space governance whatsoever).
Ok, this was a intentionally a little provocative. I - admittetly - don't know much about the internals and policys/proposals of InterNIC or RIPE NCC and what this WG is really about. And learned much today from the various posts.
We have to do either I guess, at least we do, according to RIPE-policys. So we're playing with different cards here, legacy holders are being asked "what might be a nice proposal they like", I'm not asked what "might be nice for me"
ERX space has not been given out under RIPE policies, so they do not apply. Period. There is no law, legal contract, or anything else that would make RIPE policies automagically apply to ERX space (and even *then*, there would not be any RIPE policy forcing a user of IP address space to use NAT if they do not want to).
It would solve nothing. If people insist on cementing their IPv4 world for a few more years, they would have *more* stuff to move to IPv6 in the long run - nothing solved. Agreed, not solve but shift the "problem" - though, I'm no enemy of v6, just to tell you my real-world view of IPv6: No single customer was ever interested in, no single hit on the servers we ran a while back around v6-Day, no single user on the xDSL we provide wanted to use it; the only result were new problems nobody pays for. Don't take this as a rant please, I know about your efforts in many ways, the problems are sourced by low usage/training etc. But it's a real big chicken-egg-problem and as a very small provider in business my primary job is to get a working infrastructure and happy customers
Well I remember ther (was?) or is some policy or draft suggesting this at least for 2G/3G networks which not all providers do and, well which is IMHO nonsense in context of IPv4 really running out to give each Gadget in my pocket a public IP.. that pay money; none of them ever wanted to pay a single Euro for v6 (maybe because you have all of them ;)) On 29.08.2012 12:21, Gert Doering wrote:
Now, the policy proposal raised here is not an *address space* policy proposal, but an *ncc service* policy proposal - which governs the way the NCC runs their, uh, services. And I think this is a reasonable approach - find something that the ERX holder community and the RIPE NCC is happy with, walk it through an open consensus process, and then nobody can argue that the RIPE NCC is going out and
bullying/blackmailing
ERX holders over their addresses...
Thats a key point, I didnt really get so far.. On 29.08.2012 21:58, Carsten Schiefner wrote:> Hi Nick,
On 29.08.2012 19:33, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 29/08/2012 17:09, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
in addition to ideas stated here to take away our legacy IP allocations and give us /22s and force us to use NAT and reengineer our 10,000 node university networks
No idea where this idea came from. No-one has ever suggested this or even remotely implied it. Quite the opposite in fact.
may I suggest you re-read Michael Markstaller's posting of Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:06:08 +0200? It's archived at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2012-August/001738.h... It was me, yes, and sorry for the rant. It wasn't based on any known policy or proposal but just on my Opinion and then 2ct.. Since I know now, again the proposal discussed (quoted again) is not an *address space* policy proposal, but an *ncc service* policy proposal. Ok.. But then I have another 2ct if this is relevant under this topic: I found no details in the proposals how the deal with "selling v4 addresses"(*) which will IMHO happen soon when v4 is fully exhausted. *I don't vote for this* but one or another way, it might be "cheaper" to "buy" v4 space then migrate networks, so it will happen. If I get with limited knowledge things right now, this might be a topic that could be of relevance in future. *) This was discussed quite a while back, maybe on another WG for a short time but AFAIR didn't make it to a conclusion. best regards Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlA+f8MACgkQaWRHV2kMuAKuKwCfR1xibpJJvd6UugoehCbRLy+9 6zIAn0PMuVXgYWM0uLN4CnzCK5eaxq0L =xMKo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----