- address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

> -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of michael.dillon(a)bt.com > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 3:30 PM > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] ... > People who make addressing policy, don't often think about ACLs > and firewall rules, but they are at least as important as > routing. If the Radianz network operates with globally unique > IP addresses, then the subscribers can be confident that any > ACLs blocking Radianz traffic from the Internet will never cause > a problem for real Internet traffic. Globally unique addresses > are required to have reliable ACLs in enterprise LANs. Administrative requirements never was an argument in the allocation/assignments. > Note that these types of traffic controls (ACLs) can be used > in other scenarios. Network X could announce their addresses > to some neighbour ASes in country A, and those ASes might > not announce the routes to international peers. They might > also implement ACLs so that no traffic can flow to > international peers. Network X would still be on the Internet > and their customers in country A would be happy that they > can browse all kinds of sites on the Internet in country A. > They could even send email internationally because it would > be relayed by the ASes with international peering agreements. > > Is Network X on the Internet? Is the Radianz network on the > Internet? There is a simple answer. If your address block is interacting with at least one announced prefix, then you should have globally unique addresses, otherwise - not. > > Addressing policy would be just as complex as today if RIPE > agreed that the scope for RIPE-NCC allocations should be > restricted to "the Internet". There is no point in making > such a change, and people who are ignorant of history need > to take the time and learn about the history of the Internet, > of IANA and of RIPE. Don't point to the history, because there was many changes in history. But POLICY of the RIPE NCC mean the scope - the Internet. Otherwise RIPE NCC should police any private IP-network in the world, even if the network doesn't want to be policed in any way, because does not leave several square meters of an office. Misha, derzi jazyk za zubami, i ne perehodi na lichnosti.

2 1

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

> -----Original Message----- > From: bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com > [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com] > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 3:16 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: andy(a)nosignal.org; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] > ... > > 2. The same network should have access to the Internet. Then it > should > > use NAT (not possibly in IPv6) or just be partially connected to the > > > you should update your reading list. > I ahve been using IVI (an IPv6 NAT) for a little over > 18 months ... works just fine. > And you should look into the IETF BEHAVE work... all about > IPv6 and NAT. > > Thank you for pointing that - then there is one more possibility for IPv6. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

> -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Davidson [mailto:andy@nosignal.org] > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 10:55 AM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] > > > On 29 May 2009, at 11:16, <poty(a)iiat.ru> <poty(a)iiat.ru> wrote: > > > Then Radianz could easily create its own rules without bothering the > > World, couldn't it? And so - use ANY IP addresses. Why should I see > > the > > internal networks (I use corrected "private" meanings) of Radianz or > > other such companys? If it is NEVER interact with my or the most of > > other networks in the Internet? > > Hi, Vladislav > > As others have tried to point out, private networks often still > connect to the Internet, so in order to prevent connectivity problems > between -- in this case, Radianz -- and another, unspecified network > on the Internet, then the addressing that Radianz need to use for > their private networks must be globally unique. Here we have several possibilities: 1. We have a tunnel between the internal networks - then Radianz network do not need to be GLOBALLY unique, it should be unique only between interconnected networks. 2. The same network should have access to the Internet. Then it should use NAT (not possibly in IPv6) or just be partially connected to the Internet. The second case - is announcing the block (or part of the block) to the Internet. The first case - internal network may have RFC 1918 or other IP addresses. > > Kind regards, > Andy Davidson Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

3 2

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
by poty＠iiat.ru 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

In IPv4 - NAT could help them. In IPv6 - thoroughly arranged network can do this. There is a goal in the RIPE NCC policy - not to waste the address space. If we want to live in terms of "probability" and "global charity" we could easily drop this matter at all! Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat > -----Original Message----- > From: Dmitry Kiselev [mailto:dmitry@volia.net] > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:33 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New > Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address > Allocation Policy) > > Hello! > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 02:15:08PM +0400, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > > > > If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies - > > > > it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means > > for > > > > achieving that! > > > > > > The TCP/IP Technology (including the resources to uniquely identify > > the > > > individual components) are - and indeed should continue to be - > > > accessible > > > to the full community. Whether using this stuff on the "Internet" > or > > > for > > > some other purpose is not a discriminating factor here. > > I fully agree with that! But companies, not involved in the > > communication with other parties, called the Internet, should create > > their own uniqueness for themselves. Why it should be achieved by > help > > of irrelevant (read - the Internet) party? > > > OK, but what they should do if one of them decide to come to Internet? > Renumber a whole mesh to avoid duplicates? > > If I remember correctly, few years ago FastWeb went through silimar > situation > with their modem's address space. Why we should push some parties to > this? > > -- > Dmitry Kiselev

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

You lose your arguments? And just braving your "involvements". Ha-Ha! I'm with RIPE from 1997, and yearly attending RIPE's meeting, so I can't be called "not working as part of the RIPE addressing community". But it IS not argument and I'll never be so puffed up to use it as an argument. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:32 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] > > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 02:24:42PM +0400, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > > This has always been my understanding on the principles that govern > > > the RIRs' operation - "provide unique numbers to the people that > > > need unique numbers". Be it IPv4, IPv6 or ASes. > > > > No, because it has (providing the "numbers") the scope - the > Internet, > > If I want to create my own network, not connected to the scope, I > > don't need to use any of rules of disconnected network. I'm surprised > > that you are not understanding and differentiating that. > > To phrase this a bit more blunt: you're completely off-base. I was > wording this in a polite way would have permitted you to step back > without losing face. > > Before accusing people in this list that they have no clue or no > understanding how this thing works, how the RIR system works, and so on > - maybe you should actually try to do a bit of reading on how long some > of these people have been actively working as part of the RIPE > addressing community. > > > > Maybe, following your thoughts, I could get the IP number for my pet? > > Just to be more "connected" to the network? > > If your pet has an IP connection, and you can make a good point that > it's very likely that your pet will be connected to other pets *using > IP networks*, the point could be argued that this is a valid usage of > IP resources. > > If your pet is not using IP networking technology, it doesn't need IP > addresses. > > > (This was my last e-mail on this topic, and I would kindly ask the > other mailing list participants to refrain from answering this troll > until he shows a bit more interesting in understanding reality). > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 > > 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

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
by poty＠iiat.ru 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

> -----Original Message----- > From: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet [mailto:Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at] > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:09 AM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New > Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address > Allocation Policy) > > Vladislav, > > I have to strongly disagree with your assertions. > > poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > > Nick, just because there is the word "private". > > Why should RIPE or some other organization (including mine) provide > the > > registration and supporting service (for example - uniqueness) for > PRIVATE > > networks? > > First of all, RIPE is the Community, the RIPE NCC is executing the > policies > and providing e.g. the Registration Services. > RIPE = RIPE NCC of course in my writings. Just to be more short. > Every organsiation obtaining services, e.g. an IP-Address Assignment or > an Allocation are contributing to offset the expenses; either directly > or by way of an existing LIR. What service do YOU mean? Could it be possible for me (just for prestige of my company) to obtain several class-A IPv4 blocks just paying for the RIPE NCC (now correctly written?) service? We are discriminating here not to waste the address space for that? Why we should be so happy to waste the space in the other way? I speak not about expenses, you know! > > If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies - > > it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means for > > achieving that! > > The TCP/IP Technology (including the resources to uniquely identify the > individual components) are - and indeed should continue to be - > accessible > to the full community. Whether using this stuff on the "Internet" or > for > some other purpose is not a discriminating factor here. I fully agree with that! But companies, not involved in the communication with other parties, called the Internet, should create their own uniqueness for themselves. Why it should be achieved by help of irrelevant (read - the Internet) party? > PS: we have already seen the disadvantage of liberally applying > RFC1918, > i.e. non-unique, addressing in organisations that eventually were > (forced > to) connecting to other organisations.... Sometimes it IS disadvantage, sometimes - not. It is really depends on the point of view. I think RFC 1918 prolonged the life of v4 space and it IS an advantage. And problems... Problems were, is and will be... It shouldn't be use as an argument. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

2 1

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

> -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 4:00 PM > To: michael.dillon(a)bt.com > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] > > Hi, > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:03:16AM +0100, michael.dillon(a)bt.com wrote: > > A very large number of organizations depend on these > > internetworks, and they would not be terribly happy if > > ISPs would hijack the entire IP address space for their > > own profits. But I think that the RIR boards understand > > this and have no intention of changing the rules to > > reserve IP addresses only for the public Internet. > > Let me second that. > > This has always been my understanding on the principles that govern > the RIRs' operation - "provide unique numbers to the people that need > unique numbers". Be it IPv4, IPv6 or ASes. No, because it has (providing the "numbers") the scope - the Internet, If I want to create my own network, not connected to the scope, I don't need to use any of rules of disconnected network. I'm surprised that you are not understanding and differentiating that. Maybe, following your thoughts, I could get the IP number for my pet? Just to be more "connected" to the network? > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 > > 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 > Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

2 1

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

Yes, Wilfried, interesting, but it seems that YOU are behind the reality, not mine. > -----Original Message----- > From: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet [mailto:Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at] > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:51 AM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] > > poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > > IPv4 exists most of it's time without RIR at all. So it's not prove > > anything. > > May I suggest that you read up on reality, in particular the period > of substantial growth and wide-spread penetration? > > > Other consideration is only philosophy, not policy. > > Interesting... > My feeling is that we should go back to real-life issues. > > Wilfried.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by Andy Davidson 31 May '09

31 May '09

On 31 May 2009, at 11:28, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > "Andy Davidson" <andy(a)nosignal.org> wrote: > >> IP networks can't function properly (or at least, as intended) when >> consumers of addresses start using addresses that are already >> assigned to others already. >> >> We shall see this be a problem for networks who ignore this warning >> as the last v4 /8s start to be assigned. > > Actually who is mandated to act as a policeman when this happens? > Is it IANA? Is it the RIRs? Is it informal routing agreements > outside the realm of these organizations? Nobody - just as nobody can guarantee reach-ability. Andy

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 31 May '09

31 May '09

See in-line: > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of michael.dillon(a)bt.com > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 2:03 PM > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Let me describe a real situation that we have with some > of our customers. One of several IP networks that we > operate is called Radianz. This network has PoPs in > 120 countries and has over 3000 customers connected > to it, many of them with multiple connections in different > cities. This network is an internetwork because it > interconnects the networks of 3000 other organizations. > In order to function, this network requires globally > unique IP addresses to be used for each of its > member networks even though it is not connected to > the Internet. > > The Radianz network is not a private network. It is > also not a public network. But it is a SHARED network > just like the public Internet. Then Radianz could easily create its own rules without bothering the World, couldn't it? And so - use ANY IP addresses. Why should I see the internal networks (I use corrected "private" meanings) of Radianz or other such companys? If it is NEVER interact with my or the most of other networks in the Internet? > Historically, IANA has > always allocated globally unique IP addresses to > organizations on this type of shared network. When > RFC 2050 was written by authors from the RIRs, including > RIPE, they included this text: > > the organization has no intention of connecting to > the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still > requires a globally unique IP address. The organization > should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918. > If it is determined this is not possible, they can be > issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses. > Now, the "historically" invented state should be corrected. Not all IPv4 practice should be automatically go to IPv6. Several of them are too company-specific rather than serve ALL community. > > A very large number of organizations depend on these > internetworks, and they would not be terribly happy if > ISPs would hijack the entire IP address space for their > own profits. But I think that the RIR boards understand > this and have no intention of changing the rules to > reserve IP addresses only for the public Internet. A very large, but not all! A very large number of organization (I think much more than for Radianz) depends on the services, not presented here and not gain any good from that. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

2 1