Re: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA allocation size
Hans and all, You are mistaken Hans. It would benefit you and everyone here if you would track Apnic a little closer... Hans Petter Holen wrote:
Dear WG, As I have seen no proposals to prolong this process, we have consensus on this matter.
Seasons Greetings, Hans Petter Holen Address Policy WG Chair
|Dear WG, |I would like to call for closure on this matter. As this has |been presented and discussed at the last RIPE meeting and |proposed to the list as a formal proposal I would like to |declare consensus on this issue. | |There have been discussion on the mainlinglist with some |critical comments that it is my understanding has been |clearified. (This proposal does not affect the payment scedule |or membership structure and it does not affecting the PI policy). | |With this I would normaly declare concensus but as no deadline |was set for the discussion I propose a 1 week last call for |objections to the process on this matter. If I receive |objections I propose to set a I month comment period before |calling for closure on this matter. | |Best Regards, |Hans Petter Holen |Address Policy WG Chair | ||-----Original Message----- ||From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net ||[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering ||Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:31 PM ||To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net ||Subject: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA ||allocation size || ||Hi, || ||this was discussed on the list before the last RIPE meeting, |and we had ||it on the address policy working group meeting (presented by me). || ||I think we mostly have consensus on this issue, but I want to present ||it as a formal proposal, before it's incorporated into the policy. || || ||PROPOSAL: || || * the minimum initial allocation size (for new LIRs) is reduced from || a /20, as of today, to a /21. || (If a new LIR can demonstrate need for a bigger initial |allocation, || they can get a larger address block. This will not be changed). || || * the requirement to show an immediate need for 25% of the allocated || address space is removed for the "minimum initial allocation" || || ||The motivation for that is that under the current policy, ||startup LIRs that do not already hold address space cannot get ||an initial PA allocation (which would be a /20 as of today, or ||bigger), because in many cases, they cannot demonstrate ||immediate need, or prior utilization of sufficient address space. || ||To work around this, many startup LIRs use PI address space as ||a start, and when they have filled enough of this, apply for ||their own PA again. ||The problem with this is that in the end, it's very likely ||that more than one route will end up in the global BGP table ||(where one PA route would be sufficient), and also it ||encourages lying to the RIRs (PI space must not be distributed ||to third parties, i.e., LIR customers). || || ||The drawback of the changes are that it's potentially wasting ||address space for "very small LIRs" (that would be happy with ||a /23 PI space and will now get a "huge" /21). The wastage ||would only happen for very small LIRs that will never grow to ||fill the initial /21. ||A rough calculation shows that "1000 new LIR /21 allocations" ||would need a /11, which is not an unbearable strain on the ||conservation side, judging from the total number of LIRs in ||RIPE land today. || ||A second drawback of this is that people may need to adapt ||their BGP filters to permit /21s from the network block(s) ||where these allocations are made from. So the RIPE NCC needs ||to document this accordingly, and ideally, well in advance. || ||Gert Doering || -- NetMaster ||-- ||Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: ||57785 (56883) || ||SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net ||Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 ||80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 || |
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
Hi, On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:02:03PM -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
Hans and all,
You are mistaken Hans. It would benefit you and everyone here if you would track Apnic a little closer...
Why? We are not APNIC, we are RIPE, and we only make RIPE policies. So if we send out a formal proposal to change RIPE things to RIPE lists, and nobody from the RIPE community objects - what's wrong with assuming consensus, then? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57882 (57753) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
So if we send out a formal proposal to change RIPE things to RIPE lists, and nobody from the RIPE community objects - what's wrong with assuming consensus, then?
maybe because we have not yet implemented that packets and routing information stay only within the ripe region? it's the global internet we're affecting. think locally, act globally -- motto of the small view polluter randy
Hi, On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:25:58AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
So if we send out a formal proposal to change RIPE things to RIPE lists, and nobody from the RIPE community objects - what's wrong with assuming consensus, then?
maybe because we have not yet implemented that packets and routing information stay only within the ripe region? it's the global internet we're affecting.
As the global routing information *does* affect ourselves as well, you can be assured that we won't (all) loose that aspect out of focus. The policy change in question had *exactly* this in mind: avoid people going for 2 or more PI prefixes just because they were not allowed to get *one* PA allocation. So please: constructive criticism is welcome, but things like "all that you do is wrong, because APNIC is doing something!" (and no further reason or detail given) are just wasting our time. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57882 (57753) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
So please: constructive criticism is welcome, but things like "all that you do is wrong, because APNIC is doing something!" (and no further reason or detail given) are just wasting our time.
excuse! where did i say that? please do not put stupid words into my keyboard, i do that well enough. i merely responded to what i considered an unwise statement which sets an incorrect atmosphere and could become a quoted precident set by a co-chair of this wg.
So if we send out a formal proposal to change RIPE things to RIPE lists, and nobody from the RIPE community objects - what's wrong with assuming consensus, then?
i still consider this unwise, and for the reasons i stated. and, in the face of such statements, i do not consider pointing out that we are making, or proposing to make, policy that affects the global internet a waste of time. if you feel it wastes yours, you have a delete key. randy
hi, On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:46:56AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
So please: constructive criticism is welcome, but things like "all that you do is wrong, because APNIC is doing something!" (and no further reason or detail given) are just wasting our time.
excuse! where did i say that?
*You* didn't. Jeff Williams did, to which I replied, and then you came in and implied that we don't care about globality...
please do not put stupid words into my keyboard, i do that well enough. i merely responded to what i considered an unwise statement which sets an incorrect atmosphere and could become a quoted precident set by a co-chair of this wg.
Sorry for that. You are right, it wasn't meant to be read that way in absoluteness ("what do we care about other regions"). Of course we care, but for the RIPE policy process, the accusation (from Jeff) "You are mistaken Hans. It would benefit you and everyone here if you would track Apnic a little closer...", in response to the statement from Hans-Petter "we don't have any objections, so we can assume consensus here", is ridiculous. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57882 (57753) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Jeff Williams did
who? sorry, aside from academic papers, i read the new york times, the nation, and world press review, none of which have comic pages. i kinda wish the nyt had doonsbury though. and now back to discussing how many addresses fit on the head of a pin. :-) randy
Randy, Gert and all, Randy Bush wrote:
So please: constructive criticism is welcome, but things like "all that you do is wrong, because APNIC is doing something!" (and no further reason or detail given) are just wasting our time.
excuse! where did i say that? please do not put stupid words into my keyboard, i do that well enough. i merely responded to what i considered an unwise statement which sets an incorrect atmosphere and could become a quoted precident set by a co-chair of this wg.
So if we send out a formal proposal to change RIPE things to RIPE lists, and nobody from the RIPE community objects - what's wrong with assuming consensus, then?
i still consider this unwise, and for the reasons i stated. and, in the face of such statements, i do not consider pointing out that we are making, or proposing to make, policy that affects the global internet a waste of time. if you feel it wastes yours, you have a delete key.
Your response here Randy was a bit harsh, as I am sure you are aware of and intended. However am I wrong in my understanding on these exchanges on this thread that a rift in differences of ideology has crept into the policy making process here unto engaged? As Randy well knows I do not often agree with his ideas or point of view. But in this instance I certainly do. It is at least unwise and I contend impossible for any WG to decide what an initial PA allocation size should be without the known and measured consensus of those directly and indirectly effected. Yet a global view and policy is prudent if not necessary. This said, it is also understandable that Gert's view from a RIPE Regional/local view in setting a initial PA allocation size may have some Regional/local advantages but could/would cause a disparency on a global business basis.. As such a need for a global policy is more attractive if it is crafted to meet or even slightly exceed a known current need and a far future need...
randy
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
Could somebody summarize what the APNIC objections to changed policy are ? -hph |> So if we send out a formal proposal to change RIPE things to RIPE |> lists, and nobody from the RIPE community objects - what's |wrong with |> assuming consensus, then? | |maybe because we have not yet implemented that packets and |routing information stay only within the ripe region? it's |the global internet we're affecting. | |think locally, act globally | -- motto of the small view polluter | |randy |
Hans Petter, No-one from the APNIC Secretariat has made any comments about the proposed policy. The reference to APNIC occurred in a sentence by Jeff Williams. Things got a bit confused from thereon.. Anne APNIC Secretariat ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
Could somebody summarize what the APNIC objections to changed policy are ?
-hph
|> So if we send out a formal proposal to change RIPE things to RIPE |> lists, and nobody from the RIPE community objects - what's |wrong with |> assuming consensus, then? | |maybe because we have not yet implemented that packets and |routing information stay only within the ripe region? it's |the global internet we're affecting. | |think locally, act globally | -- motto of the small view polluter | |randy |
_______________________________________________ Hostmaster-staff mailing list Hostmaster-staff@apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/hostmaster-staff
Randy and all, Randy Bush wrote:
So if we send out a formal proposal to change RIPE things to RIPE lists, and nobody from the RIPE community objects - what's wrong with assuming consensus, then?
maybe because we have not yet implemented that packets and routing information stay only within the ripe region? it's the global internet we're affecting.
Good point made here Randy! Well done.
think locally, act globally -- motto of the small view polluter
Well I don't know about this????
randy
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
Gert and all, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:02:03PM -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
Hans and all,
You are mistaken Hans. It would benefit you and everyone here if you would track Apnic a little closer...
Why? We are not APNIC, we are RIPE, and we only make RIPE policies.
Understood of course. However shouldn't the respective RIR's coordinate their policies or proposed policies?
So if we send out a formal proposal to change RIPE things to RIPE lists, and nobody from the RIPE community objects - what's wrong with assuming consensus, then?
Seeking consensus is of course a good thing. However assuming consensus is not consensus at all. Hence to the extent an consensus exists it must be measured and by all of the stakeholder/user community in which consensus on any proposed policy is being considered.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57882 (57753)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
participants (5)
-
Anne Lord -
Gert Doering -
Hans Petter Holen -
Jeff Williams -
Randy Bush