(sorry Jim ! subject replaced) Hi Sander, Below in-line. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Fecha: viernes, 19 de enero de 2018, 12:13 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean Hi, > 1) Temporary always ? clearly not for point-to-point links, no-sense for data centers? Indeed, this is what I asked Marco. > 2) Single address (/128) for a single device (so the device can't use privacy? Utopia!), or do we allow if the devices get a single-prefix, it uses multiple addresses out of that prefix (so we allow VMs in the device also) The policy talks about single-address increments. It doesn't say "one address", it says "separate addresses" (plural), which allows for privacy extensions etc. Right, but 6) IA say: "... There are cases where a /64 is needed per customer to provide a separate address ..." and 8) IA say: "... by using single IPv6 addresses for End User devices and services ..." furthermore it say "... provided no prefixes will be provided to other entities ..." I think this can be sorted out replacing in the IA "provided no more than a single prefix will be provided to other entities." > 3) Can the device use any technology (such as prefix sharing, eg. RFC7278), to also use addresses from a single prefix for other devices (same user) Technology used is out of scope here. I used the technology as an example, what I'm referring is if the single prefix can be shared by other devices of the user of a hot-spot (example, the hotel gives me a single /64 in the WiFi, but I've several devices). The point here is, clarification 2 above will solve the problem for multiple addresses in a single prefix, 3) may solve the problem for multiple devices with the same prefix. For both of them we may need to clarify if Max "not prefixes" is meaning also a single prefix or "not multiple prefixes", which is I think the major contradiction with the IA or NCC interpretation according to mail exchange with Marco. Cheers, Sander ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi,
Below in-line.
Please use normal quoting, I have trouble reading your emails.
Right, but 6) IA say: "... There are cases where a /64 is needed per customer to provide a separate address ..." and 8) IA say: "... by using single IPv6 addresses for End User devices and services ..." furthermore it say "... provided no prefixes will be provided to other entities ..." I think this can be sorted out replacing in the IA "provided no more than a single prefix will be provided to other entities."
No, that would drastically change the policy, and that has been looked at before. It was then decided that that is not the right approach.
I used the technology as an example, what I'm referring is if the single prefix can be shared by other devices of the user of a hot-spot (example, the hotel gives me a single /64 in the WiFi, but I've several devices). The point here is, clarification 2 above will solve the problem for multiple addresses in a single prefix, 3) may solve the problem for multiple devices with the same prefix. For both of them we may need to clarify if Max "not prefixes" is meaning also a single prefix or "not multiple prefixes", which is I think the major contradiction with the IA or NCC interpretation according to mail exchange with Marco.
Sorry, what someone does with addresses is completely out of scope here. Cheers, Sander
What I'm saying is that, if we can't change the policy text, at least we make sure that those cases are crystal clear in the IA. Or is that also breaking the PDP? Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Fecha: viernes, 19 de enero de 2018, 12:45 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] inconsistency in 2016-04 Hi, > Below in-line. Please use normal quoting, I have trouble reading your emails. > Right, but 6) IA say: "... There are cases where a /64 is needed per customer to provide a separate address ..." and 8) IA say: "... by using single IPv6 addresses for End User devices and services ..." furthermore it say "... provided no prefixes will be provided to other entities ..." I think this can be sorted out replacing in the IA "provided no more than a single prefix will be provided to other entities." No, that would drastically change the policy, and that has been looked at before. It was then decided that that is not the right approach. > I used the technology as an example, what I'm referring is if the single prefix can be shared by other devices of the user of a hot-spot (example, the hotel gives me a single /64 in the WiFi, but I've several devices). The point here is, clarification 2 above will solve the problem for multiple addresses in a single prefix, 3) may solve the problem for multiple devices with the same prefix. For both of them we may need to clarify if Max "not prefixes" is meaning also a single prefix or "not multiple prefixes", which is I think the major contradiction with the IA or NCC interpretation according to mail exchange with Marco. Sorry, what someone does with addresses is completely out of scope here. Cheers, Sander ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi, On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:19:54PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
What I'm saying is that, if we can't change the policy text, at least we make sure that those cases are crystal clear in the IA.
Or is that also breaking the PDP?
The IA happens at a well-defined point in time: before the review period starts. 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
I know, but if unclear points or discrepancies are discovered in the actual stage, how we resolve them? I understand that the PDP may have imperfections and we never realized that, not sure if it is the case. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Fecha: viernes, 19 de enero de 2018, 14:23 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] inconsistency in 2016-04 Hi, On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:19:54PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > What I'm saying is that, if we can't change the policy text, at least we make sure that those cases are crystal clear in the IA. > > Or is that also breaking the PDP? The IA happens at a well-defined point in time: before the review period starts. 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 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi, On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:28:00PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
I know, but if unclear points or discrepancies are discovered in the actual stage, how we resolve them?
Technically, if *new* (and significant) counterarguments come up in Last Call, the proposal can be returned to Discussion or Review Phase at the end. In practice, I think this only happened once. "I read this differently from everyone else and I find it confusing" is not something I'd consider "new and significant", though, unless this reading is shared by a wider group.
I understand that the PDP may have imperfections and we never realized that, not sure if it is the case.
Oh, the PDP is far from perfect. Most annoyingly, it takes a hell of a lot of work to get even the smallest change done, because there are so many stages where proposals can stall... Changing the PDP itself is not something we can do here in AP, though - that is something the plenary needs to agree, as the PDP governs all working groups. 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 19 Jan 2018, at 13:41, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Changing the PDP itself is not something we can do here in AP, though - that is something the plenary needs to agree, as the PDP governs all working groups.
Indeed. It will almost certainly be far quicker and much less painful to push a new policy proposal through the PDP than get the PDP changed. Jordi if you think the PDP is defective, by all means explain what the problem(s) is and suggest solution(s). However if you do down that path in the hope of resolving your unhappiness with the consensus decision on 2016-04 I think you may well become even more unhappy. Another troubling data point for everyone: This proposal started in 2016. It's now 2018.
participants (4)
-
Gert Doering -
Jim Reid -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Sander Steffann