Hi all, here are my *personal* opinion on this proposal. I do not support this proposal, and my reasons for this are: * This proposal increases the rate of consumption of IPv4. * It favourises the large ISPs. * In the presentation on RIPE 52, Tuesday by Filiz Yilmaz, we where told that this proposal was abandoned by ARIN and APNIC, and one representative from LacNIC also stood up and expressed their conserns. I have not heard anything from AfriNIC, but I cannot see why they would want to implement this policy. I feel if will be arrogant of the RIPE community to disregard the other RIRs conserns and implement this policy. And I also have to agree with Gert Doering who said in the address policy WG that there has been very quiet around this proposal, and that the reason for this can be that ETNO claims thay "unanimously support this proposal". -- Thor-Henrik Kvandahl no.telenor
Hi Thor-Henrik, On 4/27/06, Thor-Henrik Kvandahl <thk@telenor.net> wrote:
Hi all,
here are my *personal* opinion on this proposal.
I do not support this proposal, and my reasons for this are:
I share your opinion, your lack of support for the IPv4-HD-Ratio proposal, and your reasons to oppose it. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
[ fwiw, i am a stron no on this one ] it is almost amusing how much talk we have on using a linear vs a log function to evaluate utilization, while we spend no effort at real problems such as evaluating utilization in the presence of complex aggregation strategies, i.e. as discussed in arin, when i want to announce a /42 from each of my pops to keep route frag down, yet some are significantly less utilized than others. randy
I support Thor-Henrik views and opinions. Regards, Fernando El 27/04/2006, a las 10:48, Thor-Henrik Kvandahl escribió:
Hi all,
here are my *personal* opinion on this proposal.
I do not support this proposal, and my reasons for this are:
* This proposal increases the rate of consumption of IPv4. * It favourises the large ISPs. * In the presentation on RIPE 52, Tuesday by Filiz Yilmaz, we where told that this proposal was abandoned by ARIN and APNIC, and one representative from LacNIC also stood up and expressed their conserns. I have not heard anything from AfriNIC, but I cannot see why they would want to implement this policy. I feel if will be arrogant of the RIPE community to disregard the other RIRs conserns and implement this policy.
And I also have to agree with Gert Doering who said in the address policy WG that there has been very quiet around this proposal, and that the reason for this can be that ETNO claims thay "unanimously support this proposal".
-- Thor-Henrik Kvandahl no.telenor
------------------------------------------------ Fernando Garcia |Tel: +34 91 4359687 EUROCOMERCIAL I&C SA |Fax: +34 91 4313240 Valentín Beato, 5 |e-mail: fgarcia@eurocomercial.es E-28037 Madrid | Spain |http://www.eurocomercial.es
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:48:06 +0200 (MEST), "Thor-Henrik Kvandahl" <thk@telenor.net> said:
I do not support this proposal, and my reasons for this are:
* This proposal increases the rate of consumption of IPv4. * It favourises the large ISPs. * In the presentation on RIPE 52, Tuesday by Filiz Yilmaz, we where told that this proposal was abandoned by ARIN and APNIC, and one representative from LacNIC also stood up and expressed their conserns. I have not heard anything from AfriNIC, but I cannot see why they would want to implement this policy. I feel if will be arrogant of the RIPE community to disregard the other RIRs conserns and implement this policy.
I agree with the above. The only one I've heard arguing heavily in favor of the HD-ratio proposal was a representative for a large international backbone who saw this as an opportunity to compensate for bad internal distribution of assigned address-blocks. I don't think any-body's inability to come up with a decent network design is a reason to accept such changes to the policy.
And I also have to agree with Gert Doering who said in the address policy WG that there has been very quiet around this proposal, and that the reason for this can be that ETNO claims thay "unanimously support this proposal".
Does this mean that ETNO assume they have some form of veto in the RIPE community? I can't see any reason why ETNO's vote should count for more than any other _individual's_ opinion regardless of who they claim to represent. //per -- Per Heldal http://heldal.eml.cc/
Hi, I strongly agree with what Thor-Henrik has written below. I do not at all support this policy proposal. - Torunn At 09:48 27.04.2006, Thor-Henrik Kvandahl wrote:
Hi all,
here are my *personal* opinion on this proposal.
I do not support this proposal, and my reasons for this are:
* This proposal increases the rate of consumption of IPv4. * It favourises the large ISPs. * In the presentation on RIPE 52, Tuesday by Filiz Yilmaz, we where told that this proposal was abandoned by ARIN and APNIC, and one representative from LacNIC also stood up and expressed their conserns. I have not heard anything from AfriNIC, but I cannot see why they would want to implement this policy. I feel if will be arrogant of the RIPE community to disregard the other RIRs conserns and implement this policy.
And I also have to agree with Gert Doering who said in the address policy WG that there has been very quiet around this proposal, and that the reason for this can be that ETNO claims thay "unanimously support this proposal".
-- Thor-Henrik Kvandahl no.telenor
Torunn Narvestad Telenor Nordic
Perhaps someone can clear up my understanding on the ETNO question. Torunn Narvestad <tna@telenor.net> wrote on 30/04/2006 19:44:35:
I do not at all support this policy proposal.
And I also have to agree with Gert Doering who said in the address policy WG that there has been very quiet around this proposal, and that the reason for this can be that ETNO claims thay "unanimously support this proposal".
According to this page: http://www.etno.be/Default.aspx?tabid=1239 Telenor is a member of ETNO. Does this mean that ETNO has falsely claimed unanimous support among its members? Or has Telenor changed its mind? Earlier Per Heldal asked:
Does this mean that ETNO assume they have some form of veto in the RIPE community? I can't see any reason why ETNO's vote should count for more than any other _individual's_ opinion regardless of who they claim to represent.
Again, perhaps I misunderstand how RIPE works. Per refers to ETNO's vote but I thought that ETNO had no vote at all in RIPE working groups. My understanding was that individuals have a vote, not organizations. Have I misunderstood something here? --Michael Dillon
On Tue, 2 May 2006 Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
Perhaps someone can clear up my understanding on the ETNO question.
Torunn Narvestad <tna@telenor.net> wrote on 30/04/2006 19:44:35:
I do not at all support this policy proposal.
And I also have to agree with Gert Doering who said in the address policy WG that there has been very quiet around this proposal, and that the reason for this can be that ETNO claims thay "unanimously support this proposal".
According to this page: http://www.etno.be/Default.aspx?tabid=1239 Telenor is a member of ETNO. Does this mean that ETNO has falsely claimed unanimous support among its members? Or has Telenor changed its mind?
In my email I emphasized that I expressed my *personal* opinion. -- Thor-Henrik Kvandahl
Thor-Henrik Kvandahl wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2006 Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
Perhaps someone can clear up my understanding on the ETNO question.
Torunn Narvestad <tna@telenor.net> wrote on 30/04/2006 19:44:35:
I do not at all support this policy proposal.
And I also have to agree with Gert Doering who said in the address
policy
WG that there has been very quiet around this proposal, and that the reason for this can be that ETNO claims thay "unanimously support this proposal".
According to this page: http://www.etno.be/Default.aspx?tabid=1239 Telenor is a member of ETNO. Does this mean that ETNO has falsely claimed unanimous support among its members? Or has Telenor changed its mind?
In my email I emphasized that I expressed my *personal* opinion.
I also expressed my *personal* opinion, although I didn't emphasize it so clearly as Thor-Henrik :-) - Torunn -- Torunn Narvestad Telenor Nordic tna@telenor.net +47 47 90 00 96
On Tue, 2 May 2006 10:17:25 +0100, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com said:
According to this page: http://www.etno.be/Default.aspx?tabid=1239 Telenor is a member of ETNO. Does this mean that ETNO has falsely claimed unanimous support among its members?
I don't know for sure, but it would be no surprise. These telecoms organisations are known to have a mind of their own unlike what we're used to in our consensus-driven community.
Or has Telenor changed its mind?
Only Telenor can tell ;)
Earlier Per Heldal asked:
Does this mean that ETNO assume they have some form of veto in the RIPE community? I can't see any reason why ETNO's vote should count for more than any other _individual's_ opinion regardless of who they claim to represent.
Again, perhaps I misunderstand how RIPE works. Per refers to ETNO's vote but I thought that ETNO had no vote at all in RIPE working groups. My understanding was that individuals have a vote, not organizations. Have I misunderstood something here?
I should have used the term "voice" instead of "vote". Sorry about the confusion. Point is; ETNO members should have to stand up for themselves, individually, if they want to be heard in the community ... just like everybody else has to. //per -- Per Heldal http://heldal.eml.cc/
I should have used the term "voice" instead of "vote". Sorry about the confusion.
Point is; ETNO members should have to stand up for themselves, individually, if they want to be heard in the community ... just like everybody else has to.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. 1. ETNO has no vote at all regarding RIPE policies. 2. ETNO doesn't even have a voice in making or changing RIPE policies. 3. Telenor also has no voice in making or changing RIPE policies. 4. RIPE policies are made by the individuals who participate in the working groups and meetings. 5. ETNO, Telenor and any other organization can only influence RIPE policies if individuals from those organizations participate in RIPE working groups and meetings. I know this may seem like very basic stuff to old-timers but I think this needs to be said because some people, in particular those who participate in ETNO, do not seem to have a correct understanding of how RIPE functions. In order to be fair to all, RIPE has to make it clear how to participate in the RIPE decision-making process. --Michael Dillon
Hi all. If issues regarding rfc2050 has been discussed before, then please excuse me. I see that ARIN and LACNIC has discussed rfc2050 conflicts in this proposal, but I cannot remember that this topic is discussed in the RIPE region. This proposal breaks the 80% rule in rfc2050. The proposal mentions the 80% rule, but it does not mention or discuss the fact that this rule is stated in rfc 2050. The proposal says: d. Arguments opposing the proposal. This proposal will have some limited impact on IPV4 address consumption. I think conflicts with rfc2050 also should have been listed in the proposal item d. -- Thor-Henrik Kvandahl no.telenor On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Thor-Henrik Kvandahl wrote:
Hi all,
here are my *personal* opinion on this proposal.
I do not support this proposal, and my reasons for this are:
* This proposal increases the rate of consumption of IPv4. * It favourises the large ISPs. * In the presentation on RIPE 52, Tuesday by Filiz Yilmaz, we where told that this proposal was abandoned by ARIN and APNIC, and one representative from LacNIC also stood up and expressed their conserns. I have not heard anything from AfriNIC, but I cannot see why they would want to implement this policy. I feel if will be arrogant of the RIPE community to disregard the other RIRs conserns and implement this policy.
And I also have to agree with Gert Doering who said in the address policy WG that there has been very quiet around this proposal, and that the reason for this can be that ETNO claims thay "unanimously support this proposal".
-- Thor-Henrik Kvandahl no.telenor
participants (7)
-
Fernando García -
McTim -
Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com -
Per Heldal -
Randy Bush -
Thor-Henrik Kvandahl -
Torunn Narvestad