-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net Sent: 16 June 2007 11:00 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: address-policy-wg digest, Vol 1 #637 - 4 msgs Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg@ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft (Thomas Narten) 2. Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) 3. Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) 4. Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft (Randy Bush) --__--__-- Message: 1 To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> cc: jordi.palet@consulintel.es, ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml@arin.net>, ipv6@ietf.org, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:19:15 -0400 From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> writes:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they cou= ld use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal infrastructure's.
I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does not work that way.
De: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> Organizaci=F3n: Unfix Responder a: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> Fecha: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:00:11 +0100 Para: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml@arin.net>, <ipv6@ietf.org>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft =20 [cc'ing RIPE address policy + ARIN PPML where the discussion on this happened, I have not seen any 'operators' who have said the below, if there are they are there and can thus raise their voices because they will see this message; removed the silly spam scoring subject...] =20 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they could use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal infrastructure's. =20 I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does not work that way. =20 Real network operators, especially involved in the RIPE or other RIR's, have more than enough address space from their PA allocations that
can easily receive and they very well know how to use a /48 from that for internal infrastructure as everybody does this. The IPv6 PA
even describe that a /48 can be used per POP of the owner of the PA block. =20 Also in the ARIN region any organization can get a /48 PI block for about $100/year, as such these organizations won't be needing this address space either as they can easily take a /64 out of that for
needs. Firewalling is the key here. =20 =20
I think the policy proposal that I sent to several regions includes text and links to other documents that can clarify this perspective. =20 For example in RIPE NCC: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html =20 That is your proposal indeed. No "Operator" has stood behind this and various people from various organizations have clearly asked you and
Maybe the assertion came from those who supported ARIN Policy Proposal 2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure (http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2006_2.html), where using a /48 out of their aggregate did not solve the technical problem at hand. At that time, the question was raised whether ULA-P solved the problem adequately. The answer I heard was a very clear "no". And ULA-C (if had existed then) would have. Thomas --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:14:43 +0000 From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> To: <ipv6@ietf.org> CC: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml@arin.net>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft If you doubt about folks stating anything, then you should read *before* minutes of meetings. I'm now off-line in a plane, so can't point you to a specific URL, but this has been said at least in one ARIN meeting. It has been clear across all this discussion in several exploders, that there are both opinions, people that want ULA-C and people that don't. What you need to be smart here is to realize that those than don't want ULA-C have no any objective reason to oppose to it, because implementing ULA-C has no negative impact in others. While opposing to it has negative impact to all: Folks will use global space (PA or PI) for doing the function of ULA-C an this is a waste, yes a small waste but a waste. It seems to me irresponsible and unbalanced to do or try things like changing the HD-ratio or the default assignment size to end-sites because it is a waste, and then oppose to those that want to have ULA-C, not impacting in others and avoiding one further small saving in global unicast space. I'm not trying to convince anyone about supporting ULA-C, because it seems an impossible mission at least for a few, but at least, don't object to it if having it doesn't force you in any further implications, which is the case. Regards, Jordi they policies those the
RIPE NCC to *freeze* this proposal till at least the IETF has worked out. =20 Anybody needing a "globally unique" block can get either PA or PI space. ULA-C as such is useless. =20 Greets, Jeroen =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
De: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com> Responder a: <marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com> Fecha: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:31:29 -0400 Para: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>, <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml@arin.net>, <ipv6@ietf.org>, <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Conversaci=F3n: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft Asunto: RE: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft =20 I think a point here that needs to be looked at is this: =20 If ULA-C is addressed by IETF and then in turn we end up with RIR's responsible for handing out ULA-C blocks, then those existing policy's such as ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal Infastructure should be expired and no longer an active policy. =20 And there are different flavors to the debate of why ULA-C would be better than such policy as ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal Infastructure. Ie Standardization, conservation ect... =20 Cheers! Marla Azinger Frontier Communications =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces@arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces@arin.net]On Behalf Of Jeroen Massar Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:00 AM To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es Cc: ARIN People Posting Mailing List; ipv6@ietf.org; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft =20 =20 [cc'ing RIPE address policy + ARIN PPML where the discussion on this happened, I have not seen any 'operators' who have said the below, if there are they are there and can thus raise their voices because they will see this message; removed the silly spam scoring subject...] =20 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they could use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal infrastructure's. =20 I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does not work that way. =20 Real network operators, especially involved in the RIPE or other RIR's, have more than enough address space from their PA allocations that
can easily receive and they very well know how to use a /48 from that for internal infrastructure as everybody does this. The IPv6 PA
even describe that a /48 can be used per POP of the owner of the PA block. =20 Also in the ARIN region any organization can get a /48 PI block for about $100/year, as such these organizations won't be needing this address space either as they can easily take a /64 out of that for
needs. Firewalling is the key here. =20 =20
I think the policy proposal that I sent to several regions includes text and links to other documents that can clarify this perspective. =20 For example in RIPE NCC: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html =20 That is your proposal indeed. No "Operator" has stood behind this and various people from various organizations have clearly asked you and
********************************************** 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. --__--__-- Message: 3 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:03:25 +0000 From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> To: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml@arin.net> CC: <ipv6@ietf.org>, <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Reply-To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft Hi Marla, In fact, when I started to work on this, it was because I realized about the possibility to use ULA-C as the space for the microallocations and talking with different folks they said that it will be possible with ULA-C, but not ULA. I also talked with people from the AC and they considered the point (I was told) to use ULA-C for the microallocations when ULA-C is available. So my view is that probably the microallocations policy should not expire, but instead, be modified to make usage of the ULA-C space instead of global unicast. Regards, Jordi they policies those the
RIPE NCC to *freeze* this proposal till at least the IETF has worked out. =20 Anybody needing a "globally unique" block can get either PA or PI space. ULA-C as such is useless. =20 Greets, Jeroen =20
********************************************** 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. --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:58:12 -1000 From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> To: Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> CC: ipv6@ietf.org, ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml@arin.net>, address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
If (non-globally routed) PI is the answer to the ULA-C question, is there going to be enough (non-globally routed) PI so that I can get a (non-globally routed) PI allocation for my home, at a small charge for the guaranteed uniqueness e.g. US$10 per annum ? How about my Personal Area Network that interconnects my mobile phone, portable music player and pedometer in my shoes. Will there be enough (non-globally routed) PI that everybody on the planet who might end up having that sort of PAN can get a (non-globally routed) PI address allocation, should they want one ? How about if they want separate allocations for both their PAN and their home network.
these are rir policy and price issues. they are not technical issues. except for routability, which, as smb says, don't think you ain't gonna want to connect it some day; you will. randy End of address-policy-wg Digest
participants (1)
-
Rob Bentley