Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
+1 MVH/Regards Ragnar Anfinsen
-----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- bounces@ripe.net] På vegne av Emilio Madaio Sendt: 4. april 2012 15:22 Til: policy-announce@ripe.net Kopi: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Emne: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Dear Colleagues,
The proposal described in 2011-04 is now at its Concluding Phase.
You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04
Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 2 May 2012.
Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Hello, I still oppose this policy, however, support the "bon-volonté" of the proposers. It is bad to make looser the address allocation rules at the RIR level. Address allocation rules MUST be the same for every regional Internet registry. It is also bad to propose "one size fit all" style rules. When Randy said that why not to allocate a /16, he was just ironic, I am sure. I said that "bon-volonté" of the proposers merits its support. 6RD is here, and we do not have time to fine tune it and make it more address freindly, even if it is possible, Therefore is is wise to create exceptional rules that could support 6RD, however, these rules should be discussed at global level and MUST be valid only for a limited period of time. Best, Géza On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Anfinsen, Ragnar < Ragnar.Anfinsen@altibox.no> wrote:
+1
MVH/Regards Ragnar Anfinsen
-----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- bounces@ripe.net] På vegne av Emilio Madaio Sendt: 4. april 2012 15:22 Til: policy-announce@ripe.net Kopi: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Emne: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Dear Colleagues,
The proposal described in 2011-04 is now at its Concluding Phase.
You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04
Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 2 May 2012.
Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 14:02, Turchanyi Geza <turchanyi.geza@gmail.com> wrote:
It is bad to make looser the address allocation rules at the RIR level. Address allocation rules MUST be the same for every regional Internet registry.
No one is stopping the other RIRs from following suit; if anything this will most likely speed up adaption. I agree that a similar policy across all RIRs is desirable, though.
Therefore is is wise to create exceptional rules that could support 6RD, however, these rules should be discussed at global level and MUST be valid only for a limited period of time.
So you want to have a goldrush period where LIR grab a /29 because they can and then exclude LIR which are created at a later date and/or LIRs which did not act quickly enough from gaining the same resources? Or should LIRs be required to return addresses assigned under this policy? Will they be required to use this for 6rd only to ensure simple returns? What about 6rdv2? Will this be covered under allowed use? What about 7rd? What about something else entirely? -- Richard
Hello Richard, On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Richard Hartmann < richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 14:02, Turchanyi Geza <turchanyi.geza@gmail.com> wrote:
It is bad to make looser the address allocation rules at the RIR level. Address allocation rules MUST be the same for every regional Internet registry.
No one is stopping the other RIRs from following suit; if anything this will most likely speed up adaption. I agree that a similar policy across all RIRs is desirable, though.
There is a common rule, the HD ratio. It is in an RFC.
Therefore is is wise to create exceptional rules that could support 6RD, however, these rules should be discussed at global level and MUST be valid only for a limited period of time.
So you want to have a goldrush period where LIR grab a /29 because they can and then exclude LIR which are created at a later date and/or LIRs which did not act quickly enough from gaining the same resources? Or should LIRs be required to return addresses assigned under this policy? Will they be required to use this for 6rd only to ensure simple returns? What about 6rdv2? Will this be covered under allowed use? What about 7rd? What about something else entirely?
Definitely not. However, the current proposal might provoque a goldrush
period. Even worse: LIRs tend to merge. In the IPv4 world DEC asked for a class A space and got it. So did HP and Compaq Computers. Who owns these three class A today? HP, because Compaq swallowed DEC, then HP swallowed Compaq. The current proposal pave the road for similar stories, even by very small LIRs. Goldrush belever will profit from this! As I mentionned, even 6RD coukld fit in the old allocation framework and some people might invent even more need for addresses, if you allow loosing the rules. Best, Géza .
-- Richard
On 4/11/12 5:19 PM, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
There is a common rule, the HD ratio. It is in an RFC.
Hi, Looks like we'll discuss HD ratio at Ljubljana meeting :)
As I mentionned, even 6RD coukld fit in the old allocation framework and some people might invent even more need for addresses, if you allow loosing the rules.
Community decided they want to address the observed operational issue and at the same time don't want to make any technology "special". Why are we going in circles here? We've been through this 3 times already... :) Cheers, Jan
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 17:19, Turchanyi Geza <turchanyi.geza@gmail.com> wrote:
Definitely not. However, the current proposal might provoque a goldrush period.
If everyone has easy access to a /29, there is no goldrush.
The current proposal pave the road for similar stories, even by very small LIRs. Goldrush belever will profit from this!
If they really _need_ 3 * /29, they will justify it and get them. If they don't need it, the relative waste is minimal. Merging LIRs are not that common and it's not as if everyone would get the exhaustion equivalent of a /8.
As I mentionned, even 6RD coukld fit in the old allocation framework and some people might invent even more need for addresses, if you allow loosing the rules.
The 'r' in 6rd means "rapid". I agree with Jan, let's not go in circles. Richard
Hi, I cannot let this particular claim unanswered: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 05:19:12PM +0200, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Richard Hartmann < richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 14:02, Turchanyi Geza <turchanyi.geza@gmail.com> wrote:
It is bad to make looser the address allocation rules at the RIR level. Address allocation rules MUST be the same for every regional Internet registry.
No one is stopping the other RIRs from following suit; if anything this will most likely speed up adaption. I agree that a similar policy across all RIRs is desirable, though.
There is a common rule, the HD ratio. It is in an RFC.
Indeed, currently all regions have the HD ratio rule, and they even have the same number for it. But if you look at how that came to be, it's more due to the historic evolution of the IPv6 alloction policies in the first place than to any governing standard that says "it must be so". To the contrary, every region is free to make their own IPv6 policy that suits their membership. ARIN has had differences ("distinct networks" policy) for the longest time, as had RIPE ("PI multihoming requirements", not everybody else had that), and so on. So please stop that sub-thread now. The claim that address allocation rules must be the same in all RIRs is false, and everybody who can google for the current IPv6 policies in the regions can convince themselves of that. Thus it's not a relevant argument here and now, and only wasting bandwidth. (Feel free to bring up a global policy proposal to make the IPv6 policies identical across all regions, but that would have to be a *new* proposal, and have to be discussed in a new context) 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hello Gert, On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
I cannot let this particular claim unanswered:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 05:19:12PM +0200, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Richard Hartmann < richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 14:02, Turchanyi Geza < turchanyi.geza@gmail.com> wrote:
It is bad to make looser the address allocation rules at the RIR level. Address allocation rules MUST be the same for every regional Internet registry.
No one is stopping the other RIRs from following suit; if anything this will most likely speed up adaption. I agree that a similar policy across all RIRs is desirable, though.
There is a common rule, the HD ratio. It is in an RFC.
Indeed, currently all regions have the HD ratio rule, and they even have the same number for it. But if you look at how that came to be, it's more due to the historic evolution of the IPv6 alloction policies in the first place than to any governing standard that says "it must be so".
This divergence is a problem, I think.
To the contrary, every region is free to make their own IPv6 policy that suits their membership. ARIN has had differences ("distinct networks" policy) for the longest time, as had RIPE ("PI multihoming requirements", not everybody else had that), and so on.
This is an argument or a counter argument?
So please stop that sub-thread now. The claim that address allocation rules must be the same in all RIRs is false, and everybody who can google for the current IPv6 policies in the regions can convince themselves of that. Thus it's not a relevant argument here and now, and only wasting bandwidth.
(Feel free to bring up a global policy proposal to make the IPv6 policies identical across all regions, but that would have to be a *new* proposal, and have to be discussed in a new context)
My problem is that the divergencies invented in the RIPE region make the creation of a common policy harder. Best, Géza
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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 08:04:45PM +0200, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
There is a common rule, the HD ratio. It is in an RFC.
Indeed, currently all regions have the HD ratio rule, and they even have the same number for it. But if you look at how that came to be, it's more due to the historic evolution of the IPv6 alloction policies in the first place than to any governing standard that says "it must be so".
This divergence is a problem, I think.
Evidence so far doesn't seem to back that, and I have not seen anyone else stand up recently and voice their wish for a unified global IPv6 assignment and allocation policy. Regions are different, and this is why we *have* 5 regional IRs, to take that into account.
To the contrary, every region is free to make their own IPv6 policy that suits their membership. ARIN has had differences ("distinct networks" policy) for the longest time, as had RIPE ("PI multihoming requirements", not everybody else had that), and so on.
This is an argument or a counter argument?
It is to show that you should make up your mind. Regarding IPv6 PI, you were *opposing* a proposal that made the polices more comparable on a global basis. Now what, do you want equal policies, or not?
My problem is that the divergencies invented in the RIPE region make the creation of a common policy harder.
Creation of a common policy is not a particular goal of this working group, unless someone brings up a policy proposal explicitely tagged as "global policy proposal" (which we need as soon as it affects ICANN to RIR distribution). There will always be cases where one region introduces a change that will be picked up by other regions - or not, if that change is not suitable for other regions. So policy might re-synch itself, or might not. So while we listen to you, that particular argument in itself is no reason to stop or change 2011-04. We do regional policy. (And yes, I'm aware that there is only one global routing table. 2011-04 will not introduce extra prefixes, and one /29 will take exactly as much TCAM space as one /32). 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
(And yes, I'm aware that there is only one global routing table. 2011-04 will not introduce extra prefixes, and one /29 will take exactly as much TCAM space as one /32).
This is a point where we agree.
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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
participants (5)
-
Anfinsen, Ragnar -
Gert Doering -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Richard Hartmann -
Turchanyi Geza