Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 14
Hi Thanks guys for joining my idea, the reason why I asked in the first place is why don't we have a equal IPv4 working group then, if address technical issue alone worth for a wg, then for sure we are facing more issue with v4 than v6( in which practically still quite low usage for today's internet). And, what IPv6 wg has to do IPv6 transfer policy--it is not technical thing I believe. That said, I don't want to kill IPv6 wg, but just hoping v6 will have the normal treatment just like what we do with v4. Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy? So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well.
On 2014年11月12日, at 上午11:00, address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net wrote:
Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg@ripe.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://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-owner@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. 2014-04, 2014-12 and wording of the IPv6 address policy (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) 2. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] (Aleksi Suhonen) 3. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] (Wilhelm Boeddinghaus) 4. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] (lir@elisa.fi) 5. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] (Jim Reid) 6. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] (Jim Reid)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:03:38 +0100 From: "Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN" <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04, 2014-12 and wording of the IPv6 address policy To: Erik Bais <ebais@a2b-internet.com>, ipv6-wg@ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Message-ID: <1415714618.1677409.189621005.1C579680@webmail.messagingengine.com> Content-Type: text/plain
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014, at 15:28, Erik Bais wrote:
Could you provide insight in what you want to review ?
That particular section is more in line with the policy proposal 2014-04 and not the proposal to allow IPv6 transfers.
My point relates to section 7.1 of the current IPv6 address policy. It lets people understand that if someone got an IPv6 PI some time ago (before becoming LIR), they will have issues getting anything else IPv6-related (and possibly IPv4-related) unless they renumber (or play administrative games with the NCC or have really unique requirements - which is always subject to debate). Just as a reminder, re-numbering live networks may be much more complicated than it seems on paper (like in "try to get the address of a business-critical system changed when more than 50% of higher management doesn't know much about IT").
Paragraph 2 should be re-worded : from "must do this IF that" to "IF that THEN must do this". Makes things more readable. Paragraph 3 should be probably relaxed (?? removed entirely ??). Probably re-ordering paragraphs (1, 3, 2) would also make things easier to read and understand.
Relation to 2014-12 : Not much. It updates concerned text (without much relation to proposal's subject either). May probably clarify some cases of LIR consolidation. Relation to 2014-04 : Half redundant with 2014-04 (which will probably go live before we sort out this issue).
No problem to discuss it, but we need to change the subject in that case in order to keep this discussion clean.
Done :)
-- Radu
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:32:02 +0200 From: Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012@ssd.axu.tm> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] To: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Message-ID: <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Hello,
On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal IP address is the day we really in a world of v6.
In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support this proposal.
-- +358 44 9756548 / http://www.trex.fi/ Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy
You say "potato", I say "closest-exit."
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:26:07 +0100 From: Wilhelm Boeddinghaus <wilhelm@boeddinghaus.de> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] To: Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012@ssd.axu.tm>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Message-ID: <546327AF.9020503@boeddinghaus.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen: Hello,
On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal IP address is the day we really in a world of v6.
In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support this proposal.
Hi,
I do not support this proposal. Renaming the WG to "resource-policy" would be ok, but this is not the important point. The "address-policy" WG deals with how we give IP adresses to members and non members, it is about contracts and fair distribution of resources in a fairly large region.
In the IPv6 working group we deal with the technical aspects of IPv6, just have a look at the presentation Jen Linkovagave in London. Or have a look into the drafts of the IPv6 working groups at the IETF. There is still a lot of research going on. And many organisations just start with IPv6. Learning from others is very valuable. These aspects would not be addressed in a "resource-policy" WG.
I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today.
Regards,
Wilhelm
On 12 Nov 2014, at 11:20, Lu <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy?
No.
So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well.
RIPE can create a WG for IPv7 or whatever if and when the need arises. It can also kill a WG in the same way. [Provided Bijal is in the room. :-)] That's how we do things at RIPE.
Am 12.11.2014 um 12:29 schrieb Jim Reid:
On 12 Nov 2014, at 11:20, Lu <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy? No.
So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well. RIPE can create a WG for IPv7 or whatever if and when the need arises. It can also kill a WG in the same way. [Provided Bijal is in the room. :-)] That's how we do things at RIPE.
I support Jim Reid.
"We" is a too board definition. Me as part of Ripe community are not agree with that "we" for example. Please provide valuable argument if you think my suggestion is " pointless".
On 2014年11月12日, at 上午11:29, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 12 Nov 2014, at 11:20, Lu <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy?
No.
So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well.
RIPE can create a WG for IPv7 or whatever if and when the need arises. It can also kill a WG in the same way. [Provided Bijal is in the room. :-)] That's how we do things at RIPE.
Hi, On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:39:42AM +0000, Lu wrote:
"We" is a too board definition. Me as part of Ripe community are not agree with that "we" for example. Please provide valuable argument if you think my suggestion is " pointless".
Whatever it is, the future of the IPv6 working group MUST NOT be discussed on the address policy WG mailing list. Please stop this thread *here* - if you feel the IPv6 WG should be renamed or closed or joined with the plenary, discuss it over there. 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
Am 12.11.2014 um 12:39 schrieb Lu:
"We" is a too board definition. Me as part of Ripe community are not agree with that "we" for example. Please provide valuable argument if you think my suggestion is " pointless".
On 2014年11月12日, at 上午11:29, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 12 Nov 2014, at 11:20, Lu <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy? No.
So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well. RIPE can create a WG for IPv7 or whatever if and when the need arises. It can also kill a WG in the same way. [Provided Bijal is in the room. :-)] That's how we do things at RIPE.
Hi Lu,
I think that names are not that important, content is more important. Would you please send a proposal to the lists (IPv6, Address Policy, routing, anti abuse and connect). Please include your ideas for new names, new charters and the new structure of the working groups. Do not forget the routing WG, the connect WG and the anti abuse WG, because they also deal with IPv4 and IPv6 (routing, peering, IP based blacklists, etc.). Would you like to present the new structure of WGs in Amsterdam next May in the plenary? This would then start the official bottom up process. And then "we", this includes you, can discuss this based on your ideas and proposals. Regards, Wilhelm
Wilhelm, I don't believe you have read what I was writing, I was simply suggest a name change to fairly treat v6 as v4, not a new structure of all working group, please do not extend my wording for me, thanks. And the chair is right, this discussion should not happen here in this mailing list as it has nothing to do with address policy. So I will move off the topic here, this is my last reply on this topic in this mailing list.
On 2014年11月12日, at 上午11:50, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus <wilhelm@boeddinghaus.de> wrote:
Am 12.11.2014 um 12:39 schrieb Lu: "We" is a too board definition. Me as part of Ripe community are not agree with that "we" for example. Please provide valuable argument if you think my suggestion is " pointless".
On 2014年11月12日, at 上午11:29, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 12 Nov 2014, at 11:20, Lu <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy? No.
So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well. RIPE can create a WG for IPv7 or whatever if and when the need arises. It can also kill a WG in the same way. [Provided Bijal is in the room. :-)] That's how we do things at RIPE. Hi Lu,
I think that names are not that important, content is more important. Would you please send a proposal to the lists (IPv6, Address Policy, routing, anti abuse and connect). Please include your ideas for new names, new charters and the new structure of the working groups. Do not forget the routing WG, the connect WG and the anti abuse WG, because they also deal with IPv4 and IPv6 (routing, peering, IP based blacklists, etc.).
Would you like to present the new structure of WGs in Amsterdam next May in the plenary? This would then start the official bottom up process. And then "we", this includes you, can discuss this based on your ideas and proposals.
Regards,
Wilhelm
participants (4)
-
Gert Doering -
Jim Reid -
Lu -
Wilhelm Boeddinghaus