-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I cannot personally see any problems with this, since the holder of the block should (must?) advertise it as a single aggregate, the routing tables should not grow dependent on if the provider makes 1 or 65000 IPv6 assignments Mike. Gert Doering wrote:

Hi everybody,

I have asked Filiz to extend the discussion period for this proposal, because there have been *no* comments in the last round - but the proposal itself was changed, and as such, I can't just declare "consensus" or "no consensus" here.

Please give us your input on whether you think the proposal *as written right now* is a good thing to have.

regards,

Gert Doering, Address Policy WG Chair

On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 07:02:32AM +0100, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:

...

PDP Number: 2006-02 IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy

Dear Colleagues

The Discussion Period for the proposal 2006-06 has been extended until until 19 March 2007.

This proposal is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria and the End Site definition in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy".

You can find the full proposal at:

http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html

We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>.

Regards

Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

Gert Doering -- NetMaster -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFF4qirxUvvuPE3k4oRAuSTAJ9h7Jx5/hM+T+fswHqQTJlVMXoJRgCdHqWC M2YrsdRI6eL9rSH4HoBoUWI= =HM9j -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Just as an editorial comment: We should also remove the "requirement" to advertise the prefix. This is another (useless) artificial barrier to the deployment of IPv6 as a generally avalable technology for building networks.

I'd like to second Wilfred on this point. Just because RIPE has allocated address space, this does not mean that the address space will be visible on the Internet at any particular stage. RIPE NCC provides a general address space registry function, not just a public internet address registry function. While there is an argument for using PI for private assignments, right now we can't do this in ipv6, because there is no ipv6 PI space yet. But more importantly, there are situations where it may be appropriate for a private entity to register large amounts of v6 address space, where PI would be less appropriate due to sub-assignment issues. Nick Hilliard -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick@inex.ie

Hi Nick, I believe it will be more appropriate to use in those cases ULA or ULA-central (this needs to be rescued and moved up in the IETF process, as I already voiced in ppml and in the last ARIN meeting). However, the point here is to know if you will still support this policy proposal "as is" right now, so we can finally get this done and then new changes applied in the future, or if I need to send a new version which doesn't include the "advertisement" bit, so we can vote for both ? By the way, trying to answer also Wilfried's email, I think the "to whom" it is advertised may be clarified as "The LIR must advertise *to the next hops* the single address block through a single aggregated prefix.". Regards, Jordi

De: Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Fecha: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:14:07 +0000 Para: <Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at> CC: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

...

Just as an editorial comment: We should also remove the "requirement" to advertise the prefix. This is another (useless) artificial barrier to the deployment of IPv6 as a generally avalable technology for building networks.

I'd like to second Wilfred on this point. Just because RIPE has allocated address space, this does not mean that the address space will be visible on the Internet at any particular stage. RIPE NCC provides a general address space registry function, not just a public internet address registry function.

While there is an argument for using PI for private assignments, right now we can't do this in ipv6, because there is no ipv6 PI space yet. But more importantly, there are situations where it may be appropriate for a private entity to register large amounts of v6 address space, where PI would be less appropriate due to sub-assignment issues.

Nick Hilliard -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick@inex.ie

********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

Below, in-line.

De: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Organización: UniVie - ACOnet Responder a: <Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Fecha: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:45:00 +0000 Para: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

...

Hi Nick,

I believe it will be more appropriate to use in those cases ULA or ULA-central (this needs to be rescued and moved up in the IETF process, as I already voiced in ppml and in the last ARIN meeting).

However, the point here is to know if you will still support this policy proposal "as is" right now, so we can finally get this done and then new changes applied in the future, or if I need to send a new version which doesn't include the "advertisement" bit, so we can vote for both ?

For obvious reasons I cannot speak for Nick, but my take here is - get it out through the door as it is, if there's support for it. Then we can start a next round to improve. The "real" issue at the moment is to change the address distribution policy, and not the fine-tuning of routing recommendations.

Ok, thanks.

...

By the way, trying to answer also Wilfried's email, I think the "to whom" it is advertised may be clarified as "The LIR must advertise *to the next hops* the single address block through a single aggregated prefix.".

This is one aspect I am not so sure about: "to the next hops". There may well be very good reasons to advertise smaller portions to your next hop(s). And "we" really don't care about that, do we? The "real" issue imho is to make sure that just one prefix makes it to the core/DFZ/<your favourite term here>.

And as has been pointed out already, from the point of view of an RIR this is (should be?) more like a (strong) recommendation than a formal *address policy* aspect. If this recommendation is violated, the RIR doesn't have appropriate means to sanction anyway...

Well, I'm not sure I agree ... But I think it will be better to stop this part of the thread here if we want to move ahead now :-)

Wilfried.

...

Regards, Jordi

...

De: Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Fecha: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:14:07 +0000 Para: <Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at> CC: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

...

Just as an editorial comment: We should also remove the "requirement" to advertise the prefix. This is another (useless) artificial barrier to the deployment of IPv6 as a generally avalable technology for building networks.

I'd like to second Wilfred on this point. Just because RIPE has allocated address space, this does not mean that the address space will be visible on the Internet at any particular stage. RIPE NCC provides a general address space registry function, not just a public internet address registry function.

While there is an argument for using PI for private assignments, right now we can't do this in ipv6, because there is no ipv6 PI space yet. But more importantly, there are situations where it may be appropriate for a private entity to register large amounts of v6 address space, where PI would be less appropriate due to sub-assignment issues.

Nick Hilliard -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick@inex.ie

********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOne, 26 Feb 2007 10:56:

I fully support the proposal.

Me too. If it comes to a vote I would say yes.

Just as an editorial comment: We should also remove the "requirement" to advertise the prefix. This is another (useless) artificial barrier to the deployment of IPv6 as a generally avalable technology for building networks.

I'm still thinking about this point but right now I agree with Wilfried. I can imagine cases where allocated IPv6 is needed or very useful without connecting (now or during the next years) to the public internet or other private networks.

I'd propose to reword it slightly along the lines of:

"If the prefix is advertised or announced towards the routing core it has to be advertised as, or aggregated into, a single announcement."

I like the idea of giving recommendations about this and pointing out what can happen when violating them. But I'm not sure if this is the right place. Also for me it's not clear which consequences not announcing or not aggregating prefixes will have (besides the technical ones). I suppose in this case Ripe _may_ do something, not _must_ do something. Fine for me. Anyway I support the proposal as it is. cheers, Michael -- Michael Adams Tel: +49 221 2222 657 Network Engineering & Design Fax: +49 221 2222 7657 NetCologne Geschäftsführer Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH Werner Hanf Am Coloneum 9 Dipl.-Ing. Karl-Heinz Zankel 50829 Köln HRB 25580, Amtsgericht Köln

Hi, Gert Doering schrieb:

Hi everybody,

I have asked Filiz to extend the discussion period for this proposal, because there have been *no* comments in the last round - but the proposal itself was changed, and as such, I can't just declare "consensus" or "no consensus" here.

that's the whole problem with this "democracy" thing :-) Existing Allocation holders might not care anymore, others might not read the relevant mailinglists/webpages <...> (and some get bored of the lenghtly PDP ...)

Please give us your input on whether you think the proposal *as written right now* is a good thing to have.

*** VOTE *** If it comes to a vote: This is a *YES* for the vote-counter, as written right now. *** VOTE *** I supported the key point of the proposal (getting rid of some no longer needed obstacles for LIRs who want to get an IPv6 Allocation) from the start, so the changes are fine with me. I don't think there are any relevant downsides like (relevant) routing table growth -> i don't see _any_ downsides from the main changes. What i won't do now is commenting on minor wording issues; i want this proposal to be passed, NOW, not to continue some more years with some more versions of the draft. I think this can be dealt with in a follow-up proposal if really needed in this case. The main points are fine. (BTW: This is not a personal issue, i have all my IPv6 Allocations already :-) I just want to get this done for the sake of IPv6 distribution since we're discussing about that for ages now!) -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================

Hi,

Please give us your input on whether you think the proposal *as written right now* is a good thing to have.

Looks good to me - Sander