RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
Nick, just because there is the word "private". Why should RIPE or some other organization (including mine) provide the registration and supporting service (for example - uniqueness) for PRIVATE networks? If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies - it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means for achieving that! Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:18 AM To: Frederic Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) On 27/05/2009 17:41, Frederic wrote:
but we suggest that may be a good rule to write somewhere that it's ask to LIR to garant routing.
so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let choice for operator so it let choice to not garant routing.
from my other mail to this mailing list: "- just because an organisation hasn't announced an ipv6 prefix on the Internet-with-a-capital-I[*], that doesn't mean they aren't using the address space for other entirely valid purposes." Frederic, can you please explain why a LIR which: 1. requires an ipv6 allocation for use on a private network 2. meets all the other requirements of the IPv6 address allocation policy 3. requires unique addresses (e.g. interconnecting with other private ipv6 networks) ... shouldn't be granted a RIPE IPv6 allocation? Or are you trying to say that there is only a single valid IPv6 network in the world? Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick@inex.ie [*] whatever the "Internet-with-a-capital-I" means
Vladislav, this is a function that the RIPE NCC have always provided, if this relationship is truely private then I would suggest consulting RFC1918 or RFC4193. ------------------------------------------------ David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Limited http://www.clara.net -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net on behalf of poty@iiat.ru Sent: Fri 5/29/2009 09:12 To: nick@inex.ie; frederic@placenet.org Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) Nick, just because there is the word "private". Why should RIPE or some other organization (including mine) provide the registration and supporting service (for example - uniqueness) for PRIVATE networks? If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies - it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means for achieving that! Potapov Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:18 AM To: Frederic Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) On 27/05/2009 17:41, Frederic wrote:
but we suggest that may be a good rule to write somewhere that it's ask to LIR to garant routing.
so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let choice for operator so it let choice to not garant routing.
from my other mail to this mailing list: "- just because an organisation hasn't announced an ipv6 prefix on the Internet-with-a-capital-I[*], that doesn't mean they aren't using the address space for other entirely valid purposes." Frederic, can you please explain why a LIR which: 1. requires an ipv6 allocation for use on a private network 2. meets all the other requirements of the IPv6 address allocation policy 3. requires unique addresses (e.g. interconnecting with other private ipv6 networks) ... shouldn't be granted a RIPE IPv6 allocation? Or are you trying to say that there is only a single valid IPv6 network in the world? Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick@inex.ie [*] whatever the "Internet-with-a-capital-I" means
Vladislav, I have to strongly disagree with your assertions. poty@iiat.ru wrote:
Nick, just because there is the word "private". Why should RIPE or some other organization (including mine) provide the registration and supporting service (for example - uniqueness) for PRIVATE networks?
First of all, RIPE is the Community, the RIPE NCC is executing the policies and providing e.g. the Registration Services. Every organsiation obtaining services, e.g. an IP-Address Assignment or an Allocation are contributing to offset the expenses; either directly or by way of an existing LIR.
If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies - it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means for achieving that!
The TCP/IP Technology (including the resources to uniquely identify the individual components) are - and indeed should continue to be - accessible to the full community. Whether using this stuff on the "Internet" or for some other purpose is not a discriminating factor here.
Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat
PS: we have already seen the disadvantage of liberally applying RFC1918, i.e. non-unique, addressing in organisations that eventually were (forced to) connecting to other organisations....
I'm sorry if I missed a crucial part of the conversation, but I've stopped understanding how this discussion relates to the policy proposal at hand. There is certainly a discussion that can be had about what type of network qualifies for unique address space. These types of networks can already trivially comply with the existing policy by announcing the address space on the public internet and nullrouting all traffic. Obviously not to be encouraged, but that's a consequence of a one-line requirement like this. So I do not see how changing the policy in this way has any effect (other than the beneficial effect of not encouraging such announcements) and I have seen no amendments to the policy that would have any effect. I would encourage someone to make a policy proposal on this topic - it is something that needs airing irrespective of 2009-06. The alternate argument that I see is that we should not shirk our responsibility to set good policies simply because we "don't do routing". I fully agree with this. If we are to do it in this document, however, then we have a fragile allocation policy that is subject to the winds of operational practice. Already we see requests to allow, say, multiple /32s for LIRs that operate multiple independent (and independently routed) networks. This is not just an abstract preference: already we see requests to allow, say, multiple /32s for LIRs that operate multiple independent (and independently routed) networks. A direct consequence of the existing policy is that they may not deaggregate. So we have tied the hands of routing best practice and will continue to do so unless and until we remove the routing restriction from the addressing policy and deal with it separately. So I can't see anything in the current arguments that are really affected by this policy proposal, at least not adversely. I'd like to see it ratified. We can work on separate proposals which might affect them. All the best, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Senior Network Engineer HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +353-1-660 9040 fax: +353-1-660 3666 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ H323 GDS:0035301101738 PGP: 1024D/C757ADA9
participants (4)
-
Dave Wilson -
David Freedman -
poty＠iiat.ru -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet