Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Hi all. Am 14.02.2012 15:42, schrieb Emilio Madaio:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 13 March 2012.
I'm 100% happy with the draft but one thing circles in my mind. 5.1.2 says it's possible to qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 based on the number of existing users. Shouldn't this be possible for existing IPv6 space holders too? 5.7 doesn't mention this. Just a thought... Michael -- Michael Adams Tel: +49 221 2222 657 Network Engineering & Design Fax: +49 221 2222 7657 NetCologne Geschäftsführer Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH Dr. Hans Konle (Sprecher) Am Coloneum 9 Dipl.-Ing. Karl-Heinz Zankel 50829 Köln HRB 25580, Amtsgericht Köln
On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 16:32 +0100, Michael Adams wrote:
5.1.2 says it's possible to qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 based on the number of existing users.
Shouldn't this be possible for existing IPv6 space holders too? 5.7 doesn't mention this.
Existing IPv6 space holders can request (under the new policy) space to get them to /29. Should they NEED more, based on their existing users, they would probably qualify to request additional space. If they don't qualify to request additional space, do they really NEED more?
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:47:59AM -0500, Tiberiu Ungureanu wrote:
Existing IPv6 space holders can request (under the new policy) space to get them to /29. Should they NEED more, based on their existing users, they would probably qualify to request additional space. If they don't qualify to request additional space, do they really NEED more?
The problem is that the "additional allocation" policy is far more draconian than the "initial allocation" policy. HD ratio doesn't matter for the initial alloc, but for any additional alloc. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
On 2/15/12 9:10 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:47:59AM -0500, Tiberiu Ungureanu wrote:
Existing IPv6 space holders can request (under the new policy) space to get them to /29. Should they NEED more, based on their existing users, they would probably qualify to request additional space. If they don't qualify to request additional space, do they really NEED more?
The problem is that the "additional allocation" policy is far more draconian than the "initial allocation" policy.
HD ratio doesn't matter for the initial alloc, but for any additional alloc.
What I read here is that probably we'll have to revise additional alloc policy part when we are done with 2011-04, am I right? Cheers, Jan
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:20:18PM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
The problem is that the "additional allocation" policy is far more draconian than the "initial allocation" policy.
HD ratio doesn't matter for the initial alloc, but for any additional alloc.
What I read here is that probably we'll have to revise additional alloc policy part when we are done with 2011-04, am I right?
Yesterday. I see 2011-04 more as a vehicle to buy us three more bits to fix the additional allocation policy mess hopefully in time before folks need more than a /29, and that's why I don't oppose it. :-) Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
On 16/02/2012 00:12, Daniel Roesen wrote:
Yesterday. I see 2011-04 more as a vehicle to buy us three more bits to fix the additional allocation policy mess hopefully in time before folks need more than a /29, and that's why I don't oppose it. :-)
If the HD ratio requirements need to be changed, they can be changed - but it ought to be done separately to this proposal. Let's not create a messy workaround for a different problem. Nick
On 2/16/12 1:27 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 16/02/2012 00:12, Daniel Roesen wrote:
Yesterday. I see 2011-04 more as a vehicle to buy us three more bits to fix the additional allocation policy mess hopefully in time before folks need more than a /29, and that's why I don't oppose it. :-)
If the HD ratio requirements need to be changed, they can be changed - but it ought to be done separately to this proposal. Let's not create a messy workaround for a different problem.
Totally agree. Who's interested in working on this separate policy change proposal? We can meet in Ljubljana RIPE meeting in April and see how we can proceed. Cheers, Jan
Hi, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:00:19AM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
Totally agree. Who's interested in working on this separate policy change proposal? We can meet in Ljubljana RIPE meeting in April and see how we can proceed.
I have it from a well-informed source that the Address Policy WG will meet in April, in Ljubljana ;-) - and so far, our agend a looks fairly light. Shall we put "revisit additional allocation policy" on it...? 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
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 08:37:47PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
I have it from a well-informed source that the Address Policy WG will meet in April, in Ljubljana ;-) - and so far, our agend a looks fairly light.
Shall we put "revisit additional allocation policy" on it...?
Actually I would prefer to revisit it here. Not everyone has the opportunity to travel around. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Hi, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:18:47PM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 08:37:47PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
I have it from a well-informed source that the Address Policy WG will meet in April, in Ljubljana ;-) - and so far, our agend a looks fairly light.
Shall we put "revisit additional allocation policy" on it...?
Actually I would prefer to revisit it here. Not everyone has the opportunity to travel around.
Well, you know that we don't do decisions at RIPE meetings, but everything needs to be visible on the list, and go through the formal process. The meetings have the advance that feedback "from the working group" is coming in more quickly, and to get a feel for the direction something should be taken is easier - and you don't need to travel there to take part, as the remote participation facilities usually work quite well. Anyway, feel free to start the discussion here, ideally by coming up with something specific how things should look like (like "everything stays as it is, but HD ratio changed to 0.92" or "abandon HD ratio, replace by a new formula, calculated like this: ..."). 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
On 2/16/12 8:37 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:00:19AM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
Totally agree. Who's interested in working on this separate policy change proposal? We can meet in Ljubljana RIPE meeting in April and see how we can proceed.
I have it from a well-informed source that the Address Policy WG will meet in April, in Ljubljana ;-) - and so far, our agend a looks fairly light.
Shall we put "revisit additional allocation policy" on it...?
Hi, Probably. Can we start a discussion here in which direction the community feels to go with the changes? Change HD ratio? Remove it and not use it at all? Introduce something else? Suggestions? Cheers, Jan
Hi, On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 09:21:10AM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
Can we start a discussion here in which direction the community feels to go with the changes? Change HD ratio? Remove it and not use it at all? Introduce something else?
Fine with that, but then *please* change the subject, as soon as the discussion is not related to 2011-04 anymore. 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
On 2/16/12 1:12 AM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:20:18PM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
The problem is that the "additional allocation" policy is far more draconian than the "initial allocation" policy.
HD ratio doesn't matter for the initial alloc, but for any additional alloc.
What I read here is that probably we'll have to revise additional alloc policy part when we are done with 2011-04, am I right?
Yesterday. I see 2011-04 more as a vehicle to buy us three more bits to fix the additional allocation policy mess hopefully in time before folks need more than a /29, and that's why I don't oppose it. :-)
+1 Cheers, Jan
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 01:12:56AM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:20:18PM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
The problem is that the "additional allocation" policy is far more draconian than the "initial allocation" policy.
HD ratio doesn't matter for the initial alloc, but for any additional alloc.
What I read here is that probably we'll have to revise additional alloc policy part when we are done with 2011-04, am I right?
Yesterday. I see 2011-04 more as a vehicle to buy us three more bits to fix the additional allocation policy mess hopefully in time before folks need more than a /29, and that's why I don't oppose it. :-)
BTW, a proposal was recently brought forward in ARIN-land, trying to fix similar IPv6 subsequent allocation policy mess: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-November/023758.html https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2012_2.html (their criteria for another allocation is "75% or more of their total address space, or more than 90% of any serving site" being utilized) Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Hi, On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 07:48:26PM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
(their criteria for another allocation is "75% or more of their total address space, or more than 90% of any serving site" being utilized)
How does "90% of any serving site" work out? You hand out all your space in chunks of /40s, manage to actually fill a single one of them with 250 /48s to end users (while everything else is very lightly used), and get a new allocation? That would be very relaxed indeed. 75%, on the other hand, is actually much *more strict* than the current HD ratio - which requires an utilization of 36% for a /32 (RIPE-545, appendix A) going down to 14% for a /10. 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
On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 21:10 +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:47:59AM -0500, Tiberiu Ungureanu wrote:
Existing IPv6 space holders can request (under the new policy) space to get them to /29. Should they NEED more, based on their existing users, they would probably qualify to request additional space. If they don't qualify to request additional space, do they really NEED more?
The problem is that the "additional allocation" policy is far more draconian than the "initial allocation" policy.
HD ratio doesn't matter for the initial alloc, but for any additional alloc.
Ok, I feel this is troll-feeding, but I'll bite: From what you say, I understand that you are dissatisfied with the "_additional_ allocation" policy. Why are you trying to change the "_initial_ allocation" policy then? If there's a problem with additional allocation policy, fix that, don't break this one. We're technology professionals for heaven's sake, not politicians. If the scissors are broken, don't try to "fix" the hammer!
On 2/15/12 10:43 PM, Tiberiu Ungureanu wrote:
Ok, I feel this is troll-feeding, but I'll bite: From what you say, I understand that you are dissatisfied with the "_additional_ allocation" policy. Why are you trying to change the "_initial_ allocation" policy then? If there's a problem with additional allocation policy, fix that, don't break this one.
Hi, I don't really understand this comment. Daniel is not trying to change anything - Mark, Jordi and myself are trying to change initial alloc policy. We all need to have a look also in additional alloc policy later on, if we feel it's not optimal - but currently this has nothing to do with our (2011-04) proposal. Cheers, Jan
On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 23:50 +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
On 2/15/12 10:43 PM, Tiberiu Ungureanu wrote:
Ok, I feel this is troll-feeding, but I'll bite: From what you say, I understand that you are dissatisfied with the "_additional_ allocation" policy. Why are you trying to change the "_initial_ allocation" policy then? If there's a problem with additional allocation policy, fix that, don't break this one.
Hi,
I don't really understand this comment.
Reading the comments on the list I feel I was misunderstood, so here is an attempt to clarify my position: I do NOT oppose 2011-04, on the contrary. I fully support initial allocation of /29. In the subsequent emails on this list, there were voices that said "those who already got /32, under the new policy can only get up to /29 and need to use the hd-ratio policy to get more, while the ones that don't already have ipv6 space have an easier task to get more than /29 on the initial alloc, as they are not restricted by the hd-ratio rule". My position on this is "if you don't like the hd-ratio rule, submit a proposition regarding that policy, and we will be glad to discuss it". Therefore, I would want to see the initial allocation policy changed to allow /29 without justification, but i would not want to see loopholes allowing users that already have a /32 to get more than /29 without being subjected to the hd-ratio policy. I hope that makes it clear where I stand.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 04:43:10PM -0500, Tiberiu Ungureanu wrote:
Ok, I feel this is troll-feeding,
Thanks for your kind words.
From what you say, I understand that you are dissatisfied with the "_additional_ allocation" policy.
Correct.
Why are you trying to change the "_initial_ allocation" policy then?
I'm not - as without also changing the additional allocation policy, it's meaningless for anyone in danger of "needing more" in the future. Especially as I'm told that the initial allocation request is NOT evaluated with "a long term perspective", but just 2-3 years. I refrain to speculate about the background of that number. So you can quite liberally (and even more so after 2011-04 passes) get an allocation of size X for 2-3 years, and after that you can completely revamp your addressing scheme and renumber everything because you suddenly can't get more space with exactly the same plan with which you got your initial allocation. How broken is THAT please? What a mess. And IPv6 was supposed to make things easier. Especially regarding internal addressing hierarchy (for that you need BITS in your prefix!). But we're effectively left with "have 36.86% of your alloc in use" (IPv6 HD-Ratio requirement for additional alloc >/32) instead of the IPv4 80%. Most excellent. HD-Ratio 0.94 way over the top.
If there's a problem with additional allocation policy, fix that, don't break this one.
I'm not breaking anything, I'm just pointing out that the initial and additional allocation policies already differ significantly and that this makes no sense to me. 2011-04 just makes that discrepancy even worse. Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
participants (6)
-
Daniel Roesen -
Gert Doering -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Michael Adams -
Nick Hilliard -
Tiberiu Ungureanu