Guidance Requested: Changing the Status of PI Address Space
Hi all My question is: Why RIPE NCC should go one step back instead one step forward? I remember an idea to remove status "Provider Aggregatable" (PA) and "Provider Independent" (PI) for IPv6 addresses [see Ref 1 / Ref 2]. If we go ahead with this idea and open it for any kind of IP address, than final result is the same as current guidance request. Ref 1: http://ripe62.ripe.net/presentations/148-wg.pdf<http://ripe62.ripe.net/presentations/148-wg.pdf%20/> Ref 2: http://ripe63.ripe.net/presentations/143-wg3.pdf I think, I could accept request as our first step in direction of removing status "Provider Aggregatable" (PA) and "Provider Independent" (PI). Best regards, Olaf Sonderegger
Agree From: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG Sent: 2013 m. birželio 26 d. 12:11 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Guidance Requested: Changing the Status of PI Address Space Hi all My question is: Why RIPE NCC should go one step back instead one step forward? I remember an idea to remove status "Provider Aggregatable" (PA) and "Provider Independent" (PI) for IPv6 addresses [see Ref 1 / Ref 2]. If we go ahead with this idea and open it for any kind of IP address, than final result is the same as current guidance request. Ref 1: http://ripe62.ripe.net/presentations/148-wg.pdf <http://ripe62.ripe.net/presentations/148-wg.pdf%20/> Ref 2: http://ripe63.ripe.net/presentations/143-wg3.pdf I think, I could accept request as our first step in direction of removing status "Provider Aggregatable" (PA) and "Provider Independent" (PI). Best regards, Olaf Sonderegger
Hi, On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:10:55AM +0000, Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG wrote:
My question is: Why RIPE NCC should go one step back instead one step forward?
I remember an idea to remove status "Provider Aggregatable" (PA) and "Provider Independent" (PI) for IPv6 addresses [see Ref 1 / Ref 2]. If we go ahead with this idea and open it for any kind of IP address, than final result is the same as current guidance request.
To change this would require a policy proposal that would change these bits of the IPv4 address policy, and go through the PDP process, and that's a somewhat major undertaking. Permitting relabeling of PI into PA space is "low effort", as it is not actually covered by policy today - so if the community says "we see no problem with that, let's do it" the NCC can go ahead without a formal process. (The current policy neither permits nor forbids the NCC to do so, so the guidance requested from the community is "what should the NCC do here, with no clear rules set by policy?" - and I think we have fairly clear guidance so far. I'll wait a few more days and then summarize the feedback received). 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 Okay, I agree with Gert's point of view. If community doesn't see any problem with guidance request, let's do it. It would be nice if Address Policy WG could continue with the idea about removing status "Provider Aggregatable" (PA) and "Provider Independent" (PI). Are there any plans? Olaf Sonderegger -----Original Message----- From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] Sent: Mittwoch, 26. Juni 2013 12:42 To: Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Guidance Requested: Changing the Status of PI Address Space Hi, On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:10:55AM +0000, Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG wrote:
My question is: Why RIPE NCC should go one step back instead one step forward?
I remember an idea to remove status "Provider Aggregatable" (PA) and "Provider Independent" (PI) for IPv6 addresses [see Ref 1 / Ref 2]. If we go ahead with this idea and open it for any kind of IP address, than final result is the same as current guidance request.
To change this would require a policy proposal that would change these bits of the IPv4 address policy, and go through the PDP process, and that's a somewhat major undertaking. Permitting relabeling of PI into PA space is "low effort", as it is not actually covered by policy today - so if the community says "we see no problem with that, let's do it" the NCC can go ahead without a formal process. (The current policy neither permits nor forbids the NCC to do so, so the guidance requested from the community is "what should the NCC do here, with no clear rules set by policy?" - and I think we have fairly clear guidance so far. I'll wait a few more days and then summarize the feedback received). 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 Olaf,
Okay, I agree with Gert's point of view. If community doesn't see any problem with guidance request, let's do it.
It would be nice if Address Policy WG could continue with the idea about removing status "Provider Aggregatable" (PA) and "Provider Independent" (PI). Are there any plans?
Plans: definitely! Time: not enough, looking for volunteers :-) Cheers, Sander
participants (4)
-
Gert Doering -
Martynas UAB "Duomenų Centras" -
Sander Steffann -
Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG