Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 InitialAllocation Criteria
Hi, On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:33:46PM +0100, Cameron Gray wrote:
First a little background, recently in the London Webhosting world, a big drive has occured to become multi-homed and isolated from any one providers screwups, downtime, incompetence, etc. The problem with this is that very few of them have any of the necessary skills to liase with the NCC to do requests or even understand why its necessary [tangent: the number of times I see "because ARIN gave us a /24 per box" as a justification from the same group is silly]. I firmly believe in leaving the important things to those who know what they are doing, present company (I hope ;)).
The small providers can have either IPv6 PI (currently disallowed and frowned upon) or become a LIR and wreak havoc on the hostmasters.
This is something that I really don't understand. The hostmasters are here to help educate LIRs that don't know what they are doing - and it will be for the better of everyone. If they are so clueless, then they shouldn't be allowed to do BGP, and possible "wreak havoc" on everybody else's routing tables.
I'm against dishing out /32s to Joe Blogs because I believe the subnet recommendation/guidelines as published are a good balance. In theory a /48 for any customer site should be several orders of magnitude to many for most customers in two years.
But the ongoing problem is that of what should be allowed into the public v6 Internet.
Indeed. The idea behind the proposed change is (sort of) "those who can be bothered to understand the system and become a LIR are allowed". What you are asking for ("those people are clueless but so important that they need to be visible in everyones routing table") is a different proposal. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
Gert Doering wrote:
Hi, This is something that I really don't understand. The hostmasters are here to help educate LIRs that don't know what they are doing - and it will be for the better of everyone.
I whole heartedly agree.
If they are so clueless, then they shouldn't be allowed to do BGP, and possible "wreak havoc" on everybody else's routing tables.
Exactly (and DO), part of what Netegral does is clear up after this sort of stupidity. I'm in favour of IQ tests with a rising scale at every level of IT. Maybe that'll kill off the spammers.
Indeed. The idea behind the proposed change is (sort of) "those who can be bothered to understand the system and become a LIR are allowed".
A perfectly good philosophy.
What you are asking for ("those people are clueless but so important that they need to be visible in everyones routing table") is a different proposal.
Well not quite, personally if the /32 rule goes ahead (pretty much as good as any other suggestion to date) there is no problem. However, I also have to battle their mindset on a daily basis and that will hamper the uptake of IPv6. Remember in the web hosting world, the attitude of "I can get it for free so screw the rules" is extremely prevalent. It's very much they want the cake and to eat it too. We have to remember that most of these individuals and companies have no clue of the impact that they can cause (and frequently do). I wondered if we could pre-empt this in policy instead of having them again flaunting the rules and doing it anyway. -- Best regards, Cameron Gray Director, Netegral Limited www.netegral.co.uk | cgray@netegral.co.uk 0871 277 NTGL (6845)
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 09:43:39AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Indeed. The idea behind the proposed change is (sort of) "those who can be bothered to understand the system and become a LIR are allowed".
I cannot see any requirement of "understanding the system", just "become a LIR", which boils down to "shell out enough money to RIPE NCC". Do you follow the illusion that LIRs are more clued on average than non-LIRs? Basically the proposal wants to change: "People who pay enough money to RIPE NCC and are ISPs (or lie convincingly enough) and claim a certain customer count projection" to "People who pay enough money to RIPE NCC and are ISPs (or lie convincingly enough)" Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Daniel and all, I have to agree with Daniel's assesment here, unfortunately... Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 09:43:39AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Indeed. The idea behind the proposed change is (sort of) "those who can be bothered to understand the system and become a LIR are allowed".
I cannot see any requirement of "understanding the system", just "become a LIR", which boils down to "shell out enough money to RIPE NCC". Do you follow the illusion that LIRs are more clued on average than non-LIRs?
Basically the proposal wants to change:
"People who pay enough money to RIPE NCC and are ISPs (or lie convincingly enough) and claim a certain customer count projection"
to
"People who pay enough money to RIPE NCC and are ISPs (or lie convincingly enough)"
Regards, Daniel
-- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
-- 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] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
participants (4)
-
Cameron Gray (RIPE Address Policy WG) -
Daniel Roesen -
Gert Doering -
Jeff Williams