Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
[sig-policy] situation in RIPE REgion: prop-081 and prop-083
Hello,
In the announcement mails about prop-081 and prop-083, the situation in the RIPE region was mentioned. I would like to make a clarification about this.
prop-081: Eligibility for assignments from the final /8:
In the RIPE PDP there currently are two proposals regarding the last /8. 2009-04: IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-04.html ) 2008-06 Use of final /8 (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-06.html).
2009-04 proposes that the allocations and assignments from last /8 should be used to facilitate IPv6 deployment while 2008-06 focuses on ensuring that each existing and new LIR receives routable IPv4 addresses that they can use for supporting legacy IPv4 services during the transition phase to IPv6.
prop-083: Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations:
In the RIPE region we had a similar proposal "2009-05 Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs" (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-05.html). This proposal was withdrawn due to lack of support in the community. However, this discussion led to another proposal "2009-06 Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy" (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html) which reached consensus and was implemented in October 2009.
Regards,
Ingrid Wijte
Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Hey Ingrid,
Could you please post a link to any archives relating to the discussions re your Proposal "2009-05 Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs".
I would like the review their statements and positions to see if they are applicable in this region.
Feel free to send to me directly if there is a lot of information.
Re the modifications made to 2009-06 relating to 2009-05, I am not sure how those modifications addressed the need of separately connected network locations to be able to announce 'and be seen'.
I understand that RIPE NCC, APNIC and indeed probably all RIR's make the comment regarding their 'being no guarantee of an allocation being routable that is assigned to them', but that in my opinion is just a cop out when we are fully aware of a community project which is designed to make ranges of a certain size (in a certain allocation pool) un-routable.
It is easy for an RIR to claim that they aren't responsible for the routability, remove any restriction on de-aggregation which suggests no need to additional allocations - but do so in the full knowledge that it is impractical for the LIR to actually do so and maintain the highest level of connectivity possible is irresponsible.. That is the RIR burying its head in the sand and pretending the issue doesn't exist.
All this on top of the fact that there is an obscene amount of IPv6 available and I assumed we're not worried about a rush on IPv6, and that de-aggregating to requirements has the exact same effect on the routing table as extra allocations/announcements, that this issue is really philosophical as opposed to any technical impact.
Right now we're trying to encourage as many people as possible to uptake IPv6 and that any barriers to that uptake should be torn down with all speed.
...Skeeve
-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there?
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy- bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Ingrid Wijte Sent: Thursday, 4 February 2010 1:18 AM To: sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] situation in RIPE REgion: prop-081 and prop-083
Hello,
In the announcement mails about prop-081 and prop-083, the situation in the RIPE region was mentioned. I would like to make a clarification about this.
prop-081: Eligibility for assignments from the final /8:
In the RIPE PDP there currently are two proposals regarding the last /8. 2009-04: IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-04.html ) 2008-06 Use of final /8 (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-06.html).
2009-04 proposes that the allocations and assignments from last /8 should be used to facilitate IPv6 deployment while 2008-06 focuses on ensuring that each existing and new LIR receives routable IPv4 addresses that they can use for supporting legacy IPv4 services during the transition phase to IPv6.
prop-083: Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations:
In the RIPE region we had a similar proposal "2009-05 Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs" (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-05.html). This proposal was withdrawn due to lack of support in the community. However, this discussion led to another proposal "2009-06 Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy" (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html) which reached consensus and was implemented in October 2009.
Regards,
Ingrid Wijte
Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi Skeeve,
Here are the links to the archives:
The proposal 2009-05 and the removal of routing considerations were discussed during RIPE 58. The minutes of both discussions can be found here: (Thursday and Friday sessions) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r58-minutes.html
The webcast files can be found at: Address-Policy Working Group: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/archives.php?day=thursday Extra session during Closing Plenary: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/archives.php?day=friday
You can find the archives of the discussions on the mailing list by searching for 2009-05 and 2009-06 at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2009/index.htm...
The Routing Working Group had a discussion about this topic during RIPE 59: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/routing/r59-minutes.html
Regards,
Ingrid
Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Hey Ingrid,
Could you please post a link to any archives relating to the discussions re your Proposal "2009-05 Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs".
I would like the review their statements and positions to see if they are applicable in this region.
Feel free to send to me directly if there is a lot of information.
Re the modifications made to 2009-06 relating to 2009-05, I am not sure how those modifications addressed the need of separately connected network locations to be able to announce 'and be seen'.
I understand that RIPE NCC, APNIC and indeed probably all RIR's make the comment regarding their 'being no guarantee of an allocation being routable that is assigned to them', but that in my opinion is just a cop out when we are fully aware of a community project which is designed to make ranges of a certain size (in a certain allocation pool) un-routable.
It is easy for an RIR to claim that they aren't responsible for the routability, remove any restriction on de-aggregation which suggests no need to additional allocations - but do so in the full knowledge that it is impractical for the LIR to actually do so and maintain the highest level of connectivity possible is irresponsible.. That is the RIR burying its head in the sand and pretending the issue doesn't exist.
All this on top of the fact that there is an obscene amount of IPv6 available and I assumed we're not worried about a rush on IPv6, and that de-aggregating to requirements has the exact same effect on the routing table as extra allocations/announcements, that this issue is really philosophical as opposed to any technical impact.
Right now we're trying to encourage as many people as possible to uptake IPv6 and that any barriers to that uptake should be torn down with all speed.
...Skeeve
-- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there?
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy- bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Ingrid Wijte Sent: Thursday, 4 February 2010 1:18 AM To: sig-policy@apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] situation in RIPE REgion: prop-081 and prop-083
Hello,
In the announcement mails about prop-081 and prop-083, the situation in the RIPE region was mentioned. I would like to make a clarification about this.
prop-081: Eligibility for assignments from the final /8:
In the RIPE PDP there currently are two proposals regarding the last /8. 2009-04: IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-04.html ) 2008-06 Use of final /8 (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-06.html).
2009-04 proposes that the allocations and assignments from last /8 should be used to facilitate IPv6 deployment while 2008-06 focuses on ensuring that each existing and new LIR receives routable IPv4 addresses that they can use for supporting legacy IPv4 services during the transition phase to IPv6.
prop-083: Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations:
In the RIPE region we had a similar proposal "2009-05 Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs" (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-05.html). This proposal was withdrawn due to lack of support in the community. However, this discussion led to another proposal "2009-06 Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy" (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html) which reached consensus and was implemented in October 2009.
Regards,
Ingrid Wijte
Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Activity Summary
- 4741 days inactive
- 4741 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 2 participants
- 2 comments