Hello everybody, I read all messages in this regard, and I think conversation is going off the road. One individual, or one LIR may talk about their own opinion regarding the proposal. Please do not extent the talk to all LIRs from Iran or any other region. and I don't think that it is wise to stamp a technical proposal with political issues. Are we talking about IPV4 and IPV6, or we are talking about how Iran is managing it's address space? Kind Regards, Saeed. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Reid Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 5:43 PM To: Shahin Gharghi Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran On 21 Oct 2015, at 14:49, Shahin Gharghi <shahin@gharghi.ir> wrote:
What's stoping Iranian LIRs getting an IPv6 allocation from the NCC?
Iran has a lot of IPv6 allocation but can't announce any.
So the probem isn't getting or using address space, it's routing that space. This WG (and RIPE more generally) is not in a position to decide or enforce the peering and transit policies used by ISPs ad IXPs.
Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions.
Solving the sanctions problem isn't within RIPE's control.
RIPE NCC can ease the process.I'm not sure it can. It would be up to the RIPE community to reach consensus on a policy proposal which somehow eases Iran's sanctions problems. I doubt a policy could have that effect. If you have some ideas about how this could be done, please share them or submit a policy proposal which does that.
People mentioned Iran as instance, so I explained the situation. Community has to agree that Iran and similar countries are a part of community and they can see the proposals from their own view. You are talking about making IPv4 available in future, and one of the biggest user of IPv4 in future is Iran or similar countries, so it seems we have to look at them.
Of course Iran is part of the community. However when RIPE develops address policies here, we are supposed to consider the interests of the community as a whole and do the best (or least worst) for everyone. Current policy allows Iranian LIRs to get the same sized IPv4 allocations as everyone else. IMO they're no better off or worse off than any other LIRs in the RIPE service region who need to get v4 space from the NCC.
Hi, On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:27:37AM +0330, Saeed Khademi wrote:
Are we talking about IPV4 and IPV6, or we are talking about how Iran is managing it's address space?
Since people are argueing that this proposal is necessary because IPv6 cannot be deployed in Iran, some relation seem to exist... (And indeed, it helps understanding why someone argues in favour or against a proposal if he or she explains the personal background - the RIPE service region is so large and so many different countries that something which is totally obvious for some needs explaining for others. So it's also good practice to try to listen what other people are saying, and trying to understand what they say :-) ) 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Since people are argueing that this proposal is necessary because IPv6 cannot be deployed in Iran, some relation seem to exist...
That is not true: - From technical point of view, there is no problem. And there are some IPV6 BGP routing in Iran ( for some years now ) being announced world wide. - And about 10 months ago, Minister of I.C.T ( Information and Telecommunication Technologies Ministry ) announced that we need to have IPV6 as soon as possible. Although they have their concerns about it. My main point in my previous message was that, anyone may say their opinion, but no one should talk for all LIRs or even a country. Kind Regards, Saeed. -----Original Message----- From: Gert Doering Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 12:22 PM To: Saeed Khademi Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran
Hello, On 10/22/2015 11:52 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:27:37AM +0330, Saeed Khademi wrote:
Are we talking about IPV4 and IPV6, or we are talking about how Iran is managing it's address space? Since people are argueing that this proposal is necessary because IPv6 cannot be deployed in Iran, some relation seem to exist... I don't see the connection between IPv6 not being available ..and the need of IPv4. If these two protocols would be interchangeable I would understand, but given the circumstances I think there are two distinct needs: the need of IPv4 and the need of IPv6.
(And indeed, it helps understanding why someone argues in favour or against a proposal if he or she explains the personal background - the RIPE service region is so large and so many different countries that something which is totally obvious for some needs explaining for others. So it's also good practice to try to listen what other people are saying, and trying to understand what they say :-) )
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
participants (3)
-
Gert Doering -
Radu Gheorghiu -
Saeed Khademi