Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-606, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
My feelings are mixed. On one hand, I don't quite see why the current requirement for IPv6 PA is there, and therefore it seems obvious that having IPv6 PI should be a valid requirement as well. On the other hand, if any proposal ever had the look of rearranging deck chairs, this seems like it. So I'm a bit on the fence here, awaiting further discussion to see what I haven't thought about – you, my colleagues here, always seem to think of and speak of such things. -- Jan
Hi, On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 05:13:20PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On one hand, I don't quite see why the current requirement for IPv6 PA is there, and therefore it seems obvious that having IPv6 PI should be a valid requirement as well.
Historically it was put in there as an encouragement for "last /8" LIRs to "do something with IPv6"... Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 05:13:20PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On one hand, I don't quite see why the current requirement for IPv6 PA is there, and therefore it seems obvious that having IPv6 PI should be a valid requirement as well.
Historically it was put in there as an encouragement for "last /8" LIRs to "do something with IPv6"...
I know that, but that's not quite what I meant. What I meant is that I don't see why the current requirement for IPv6 PA is there, but that the current document didn't already have IPv6 PI as a valid requirement. Not either-or. -- Jan
Hi Jan,
Historically it was put in there as an encouragement for "last /8" LIRs to "do something with IPv6"...
I know that, but that's not quite what I meant.
What I meant is that I don't see why the current requirement for IPv6 PA is there, but that the current document didn't already have IPv6 PI as a valid requirement.
Not either-or.
I first thought that the last /8 policy was written before IPv6 PI for LIRs became possible, so I checked: - IPv6 PI for LIRS was 2009-08 (concluded in 2009) - Last /8 was 2010-02 Seems I was wrong. IPv6 PI for LIRs did exist at the time that the last /8 policy was written. I think at the time we just didn't even consider LIRs that didn't want/need IPv6 PA space. Cheers, Sander
* Sander Steffann
I think at the time we just didn't even consider LIRs that didn't want/need IPv6 PA space.
Right. But the summary of the proposal identifies the *actual* problem here: «In order to qualify [for IPv6 PA], they need to request an IPv6 allocation and subsequently return their existing PI assignment (per ripe-589 section 7.1)» If that PI assignment is already in use, a requirement to renumber and return it might be a showstopper for getting PA space. Renumbering is *hard* - it is *a lot* of work. So while I don't think 2014-04 is harmful in any way and I don't have any objections to it, I do find it quite puzzling that it does not try to fix the actual problem in ripe-589 section 7.1 - which, if 2014-04 were to pass, would remain just as «downright deleterious to IPv6 adoption» as before. Tore
Hi,
I think at the time we just didn't even consider LIRs that didn't want/need IPv6 PA space.
Right. But the summary of the proposal identifies the *actual* problem here:
«In order to qualify [for IPv6 PA], they need to request an IPv6 allocation and subsequently return their existing PI assignment (per ripe-589 section 7.1)»
Yep, seen that.
If that PI assignment is already in use, a requirement to renumber and return it might be a showstopper for getting PA space. Renumbering is *hard* - it is *a lot* of work.
Ack
So while I don't think 2014-04 is harmful in any way and I don't have any objections to it, I do find it quite puzzling that it does not try to fix the actual problem in ripe-589 section 7.1 - which, if 2014-04 were to pass, would remain just as «downright deleterious to IPv6 adoption» as before.
It is again a balance of address policy vs routing table conservation. I personally wouldn't have a problem with letting an LIR keep their PI space when they get their PA space. How does this working group feel about that? Cheers, Sander
* Sander Steffann
It is again a balance of address policy vs routing table conservation. I personally wouldn't have a problem with letting an LIR keep their PI space when they get their PA space. How does this working group feel about that?
Me neither. I think is fine to *encourage* newly formed LIRs to return IPv6 PI when they're requesting PA, but *requiring* it is a tad too tough. If the end result is that the newly formed LIRs cannot provision their End Users with IPv6 addresses because they cannot realistically get PA space, we're doing something wrong... That said, this isn't my itch to scratch really (I already have all the IPv6 I need)...so if you want to do a proposal, Richard, go right ahead! I promised myself 2014 would be a proposal-free year...and besides I won't be going to Warszawa either. :-/ Tore
On Mon, 5 May 2014, Sander Steffann wrote: (...)
It is again a balance of address policy vs routing table conservation. I personally wouldn't have a problem with letting an LIR keep their PI space when they get their PA space. How does this working group feel about that?
Should be allowed to keep the PI, i.e. avoiding renumbering at all cost. Cheers, Carlos
Cheers, Sander
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 07:22:49AM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2014, Sander Steffann wrote:
(...)
It is again a balance of address policy vs routing table conservation. I personally wouldn't have a problem with letting an LIR keep their PI space when they get their PA space. How does this working group feel about that?
Should be allowed to keep the PI, i.e. avoiding renumbering at all cost.
I support both the original proposal and the idea of getting rid of renumbering requirement. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl
Hi,
Right. But the summary of the proposal identifies the *actual* problem here:
«In order to qualify [for IPv6 PA], they need to request an IPv6 allocation and subsequently return their existing PI assignment (per ripe-589 section 7.1)»
Yep, seen that.
Why should an LIR have to return his PI space if they have valid reasons for its use and are already using it ? I agree with Tore that to encourage a LIR to return a v6 PI assignments if they can, but if it is in use and active, I would feel strongly against a requirement to return the space and get a PA block. Having a v6 allocation doesn't guarantee the usage of v6 ... and if someone went through the trouble in the past to actually get a v6 PI assignment and later decides to become a LIR, they get a penalty and are required to return the space !! Besides that and the issue that a v6 PI assignment doesn't 'qualify' for the final /8 v4 allocation list, are in my opinion the 2 items that should be fixed. As a suggestion to the authors for the policy text: Skip the distinction between v6 PA or PI in the policy text and rephrase it to : b. New policy text 5.1 Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs [...] Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received v6 resources from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC. And include a change to ripe-589 section 7.1 ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-589#IPv6_PI_Assignments ) Original text: 7.1 IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs LIRs can qualify for an IPv6 PI assignment for parts of their own infrastructure that are not used for customer end sites. Where an LIR has an IPv6 allocation, the LIR must demonstrate the unique routing requirements for the PI assignment. The LIR must return the IPv6 PI assignment within a period of six months if the original criteria on which the assignment was based are no longer valid. If an organisation already received a PI assignment before becoming an LIR, the PI assignment should be returned upon receiving an IPv6 allocation if there are no specific routing requirements to justify both. Updated text: 7.1 IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs LIRs can qualify for an IPv6 PI assignment for parts of their own infrastructure that are not used for customer end sites. Where an LIR has an IPv6 allocation, the LIR must demonstrate the unique routing requirements for the PI assignment. The LIR must return the IPv6 PI assignment within a period of six months if the original criteria on which the assignment was based are no longer valid. If an organisation already received a PI assignment before becoming an LIR, the PI assignment should be returned upon receiving an IPv6 allocation, if the original criteria on which the assignment was based are no longer valid. Regards, Erik Bais
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
If that PI assignment is already in use, a requirement to renumber and return it might be a showstopper for getting PA space. Renumbering is *hard* - it is *a lot* of work.
As the guy who renumbered a /17 in a few months: Yes. Oh my $deity... yes.
So while I don't think 2014-04 is harmful in any way and I don't have any objections to it, I do find it quite puzzling that it does not try to fix the actual problem in ripe-589 section 7.1 - which, if 2014-04 were to pass, would remain just as «downright deleterious to IPv6 adoption» as before.
I would also support such a proposal or maybe even help spearhead it. ...Tore? Richard
Hi,
So while I don't think 2014-04 is harmful in any way and I don't have any objections to it, I do find it quite puzzling that it does not try to fix the actual problem in ripe-589 section 7.1 - which, if 2014-04 were to pass, would remain just as «downright deleterious to IPv6 adoption» as before.
I would also support such a proposal or maybe even help spearhead it. ...Tore?
/me feels an agenda item for section Y coming up... Cheers, Sander
Hello, On 05/05/2014 10:08 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
Historically it was put in there as an encouragement for "last /8" LIRs to "do something with IPv6"...
What I meant is that I don't see why the current requirement for IPv6 PA is there, but that the current document didn't already have IPv6 PI as a valid requirement.
Seems I was wrong. IPv6 PI for LIRs did exist at the time that the last /8 policy was written. I think at the time we just didn't even consider LIRs that didn't want/need IPv6 PA space.
The particular case that motivated me to take part in this policy proposal is that one of TREX's members got their address space as direct end user assignments during the brief while that was possible. Their organization was later auto-converted to be a LIR. They are perfectly happy with their IPv6 PI block, which they do not wish to renumber away from, because they have name servers registered in a hundred TLDs using addresses from that block already. In fact, as an alternative: they might like it if their IPv6 PI could be converted into an IPv6 PA without making it any larger. :-) Cheers, -- +358 4567 02048 / http://www.trex.fi/ Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy You say "potato", I say "closest-exit."
Hi, Aleksi wrote:
They are perfectly happy with their IPv6 PI block, which they do not wish to renumber away from, because they have name servers registered in a hundred TLDs using addresses from that block already.
It makes sense to change the policy on this basis as this also does not discourage v6 adoption. I support this proposal. Andy
participants (10)
-
Aleksi Suhonen -
Andy Davidson -
Carlos Friacas -
Erik Bais -
Gert Doering -
Jan Ingvoldstad -
Piotr Strzyzewski -
Richard Hartmann -
Sander Steffann -
Tore Anderson