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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
by Sascha Luck 06 May '11

06 May '11

I support this proposal. rgds, sascha Luck

1 0

pointer to ietf sidr wg
by Randy Bush 06 May '11

06 May '11

as requested by gert, here are pointers to the work of the sidr wg of the ietf main page of wg == documents http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sidr/ charter of sidr wg http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sidr/charter/ mailing list http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/maillist.html if i can be of help in navigation or interpretation, feel free to write to me randy, just another bozo on the routing security bus

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
by poty＠iiat.ru 06 May '11

06 May '11

According to my messages to the WG earlier and taking into good consideration of the point of view of Mikael Abrahamsson I oppose the policy too. Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 9:30 PM To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Cc: policy-announce(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Emilio Madaio wrote: > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 13 May 2011. As has been stated by me before, 50 EUR PI with no technical requirements for multihoming or other is a recipe for longterm disaster in my book. I strongly oppose. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se

1 0

On the agenda for tomorrow: 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)
by Sander Steffann 05 May '11

05 May '11

Hello WG, We will have a discussion about 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) on the agenda for tomorrow's address policy session at RIPE 62. We also will have a short presentation there about the issues that have been discussed on this mailing list over the last couple of days. The session is from 9:00 to 10:30 and remote participation is possible at http://ripe62.ripe.net/live/main. Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
by Hamed Shafaghi 05 May '11

05 May '11

I agree with this proposal. Best Regards -- I Hamed Shafaghi I I Managing Director I I Skydsl® Telecom I hamed(a)skydsl.ir I www.skydsl.ir I

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
by melchior.aelmans＠kpn.com 05 May '11

05 May '11

Dear Emilio, We support this proposal from Erik and Jordi. Thanks and regards, Melchior Aelmans KPN Mobile CARE Continuity Core Data From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Emilio Madaio Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 11:23 AM To: policy-announce(a)ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to the RIPE Document ripe-512,"IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 13 May 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR
by poty＠iiat.ru 05 May '11

05 May '11

On 05/04/2011 11:55 AM, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > Why then you should apply for PI? In case of problems RIPE (for example) would speak with a single LIR, not with thousands of widespread customers. RIPE is always speaking with the LIR, in accordance to 2007-01 policy. All new PI users are always connected with some LIR. If you want obtain PI directly from RIPE, you'll pay additional money for the contract with RIPE, it's documented on the website. ----------------- Yes, but it means that RIPE is not always "speak" exclusively with LIRs. More than that, the "customer" has rights to change the hosting LIR in every moment. It further complicates things. //////////// And generally, I don't prefer crapping PA space with such deaggregation caused just by the PI-blocking policy. ----------------- It was my idea behind the lines. Most Internet players are not so bad to do illegal and harmful things. It's not only money matters.

1 0

Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI
by Kovac, Pavol 04 May '11

04 May '11

Hi, what is the current status for this topic ? Best regards _____________________________________ Pavol Kovac

2 2

RE: [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR
by poty＠iiat.ru 04 May '11

04 May '11

On 05/04/2011 10:25 AM, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > When we add several hundred thousands IPV6 routes we are going to > extremely upgrades our infrastructure, but smaller ISP (business...) > which can't pay $100/month will not be able to do so definitely. > You know - they are different. :) Mostly they have distributed computing > environment and hardware programmed to do specific operations, huge > backbones and many-many other things which PC lacks. Not really. BGP table calculation isn't distributed (you need single place for this calculation final table). If we imagine your hundred thousands IPV6 routes scenario, CPU on these "hardware" routers will have troubles, too. --------------- I'm not arguing about that. All equipment will have troubles in case of routing table explosions. It's my point too. But BGP table calculation is only one process in the router. As Sascha Lenz have pointed out - the main problem with PC is forwarding (calculating the interface to which the packets should go and actually put it here). In this case the distributed calculations have the biggest impact. /////////////////////////// > The widespread PI will definitely adds significant amount to the number > of routes, so your forwarding problem will be much worse. Deaggregation of PA address space causes similar problems and nobody really can do anything with this. And routers aren't making difference between PI and PA. Look into IPv4 routing table, what mess is here caused not by PI assignments, but by announced /24 from aggregatable /20, /19, from PA blocks... same thing is already happening in IPv6, where're more specifics than /32 announced from PA blocks. With blocking PI you cause only one thing - people will start deaggregation of PA space more widely. And any kind of (RIPE) policy cannot forbid this. For each restriction in RIPE policy people discover some policy-conforming workaround... PI vs PA separation is just administrative thing for RIPE NCC evidence. It's impossible to force network operators filter some prefixes, just because prefix is deaggregated. You can filter in your own network, but probably nobody will filter his paying customer - money are on the first place... --------------------- While I could agree with you in some point I cannot agree fully. We all know the "rule" for IPv4 about not routing longer than /24. I got this problem with some of our PI customers and have learnt, that the money here not always help. So, the filtering is not imaginary thing. Then the deaggregation would be limited (in spite of unlimited PIs). On the other hand: if the problem arises in the future the more organized (and less in numbers) LIRs can come to agreement easier than much more "independent" crowd of PI-holders which are even now deaf to any arguments, just claiming "independence" for any cost. Of course some "clever people" will break the rules in some "smart" ways, but I don't think it would be so widespread comparing to the "get as much as you want for free" paradigm. Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd.

3 3

RE: [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR
by poty＠iiat.ru 04 May '11

04 May '11

On 05/04/2011 11:06 AM, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > I'm not arguing about that. All equipment will have troubles in case of routing table explosions. It's my point too. I don't expect any huge explosion. Reasons was described already in the list. Growth will copy current IPv4 curve... ----------------- Both "sides" doesn't have arguments and reasons, just predictions. PI in IPv4 was a long developed decision, with a lot of restrictions from the beginning, several tuning across its life. So IPv6 PIs will not have the same curve definitely. You have ignored all other my arguments. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ On 05/04/2011 11:10 AM, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > Even at 200Mbit|s with 2 upstreams it is almost impossible to deal > with full table. On 05/04/2011 11:06 AM, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > the main problem with PC is forwarding (calculating the interface to which the packets should go and actually put it here). In this case the distributed calculations have the biggest impact. With proper hardware not really. It's not a problem handle 10Gbps interface on PC these days. And I know about real deployment, where PC is used for routing >8Gbps of traffic. ------------------------- To HAVE the interface doesn't mean to USE it fully. Routing 8Gbps on a PC is unrealistic definitely, even in theory. Many people (try to) pass the desirable for reality. You can certainly incorporate some hardware port accelerators in a PC, additional interfaces, make a cluster... But it seems it would be not cheap at first and claim a competence which small ISPs can't afford at second. It is not a cheap PC with common OS we are speaking about. ///////////////////////////////// > We all know the "rule" for IPv4 about not routing longer than /24. I got this problem with some of our PI customers and have learnt, that the money here not always help. So, the filtering is not imaginary thing. Then the deaggregation would be limited (in spite of unlimited PIs). Minimum PI assignment in IPv6 is /48 - see RIPE 512. Also assigned anycasts in IPv6 are /48 - i expect, that /48 for IPv6 becames similar well-know minimum rule as /24 in IPv4 world. There're legal operational /48 assignments these days - for anycasted TLD-DNS, for example. And /48 can be assigned from /32 PA easily, there's lot of space available. And then easily announced into the BGP and almost nobody will filter it (see current IPv6 table)... ------------------- If it is so easy - use it! Why then you should apply for PI? In case of problems RIPE (for example) would speak with a single LIR, not with thousands of widespread customers. Regards, Vladislav

2 1