RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Question

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@localhost]

Tony,

Thank you very much.  I am in China now (I think you are too?) and after
tonight I probably won't be capable of to much mail till I get back to
the U.S. Saturday.  If we do have to do this then great and appreciate
it and we can work with Terry and the CTO-EXCOM too. 

Thanks Again,
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Hain [
	    
	    
] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:17 AM
> To: Bound, Jim; 'Ray Plzak'; 'Latif Ladid ("The New Internet 
> based on IPv6")'; 'PPML'; address-policy-wg@localhost
> Cc: 'Richard Jimmerson'; 'Davis, Terry L'; 
> ollivier.robert@localhost narten@localhost 'Brig, 
> Michael P CIV DISA GES-E'; Pouffary, Yanick; 'Green, David B 
> RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI'
> Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Question
> 
> Jim,
> 
> I will let Ray answer the question about individuals, but for 
> the purposes of this discussion I am willing to do the leg 
> work for any policy proposal that the task force thinks would 
> be helpful. As of yesterday's vote it is clear that the ARIN 
> AC will be working on the finishing touches for a basic PI 
> policy, and I am already working with Scott Leibrand and a 
> few others on a companion policy about how to manage the 
> designated PI block to minimize long term routing impact. 
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bound, Jim [
	    
	    
]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 6:30 AM
> > To: Ray Plzak; Latif Ladid ("The New Internet based on IPv6"); Tony 
> > Hain; PPML; address-policy-wg@localhost
> > Cc: Richard Jimmerson; Davis, Terry L; 
> ollivier.robert@localhost 
> > narten@localhost Brig, Michael P CIV DISA GES-E; 
> Pouffary, Yanick; 
> > Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI; Bound, Jim
> > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Question
> > 
> > Ray, So you don't take IETF direction but only from 
> individuals in the 
> > IETF?  Just want this to be clarified very clearly.  This also does 
> > not preclude the IPv6 Forum stating a public position on the issue 
> > whether RIRs react to it or not.  Not that will happen but 
> it could if 
> > the pain is strong enough to prohibit IPv6 deployment.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > /jim
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ray Plzak [
	    
	    
]
> > > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 6:56 AM
> > > To: 'Latif Ladid ("The New Internet based on IPv6")'; Bound, Jim; 
> > > 'Tony Hain'; 'PPML'; address-policy-wg@localhost
> > > Cc: 'Richard Jimmerson'; 'Davis, Terry L'; 
> > > ollivier.robert@localhost narten@localhost 'Brig, 
> Michael P 
> > > CIV DISA GES-E'; Pouffary, Yanick; 'Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC 
> > > STCD SRI'
> > > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Question
> > >
> > > The NAv6TF is in the ARIN region. If individuals 
> associated with it 
> > > think that ARIN should adopt a policy or change an 
> existing policy 
> > > they should not only say so they should propose such a policy. 
> > > Remember policies in the ARIN region, like in all of the RIRs is 
> > > made not by the RIR organization staff and board but by the 
> > > community in the region. ARIN staff will be more than 
> happy to help 
> > > anyone through the process, which by the way, while an 
> orderly and 
> > > formal process is not onerous, but one designed to provide for an 
> > > open and honest discussion of any policy proposal before it is 
> > > adopted. If you are interested in pursuing this, please 
> contact me 
> > > and I will get a staff member to assist you.
> > >
> > > Ray
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: address-policy-wg-admin@localhost 
> [mailto:address-policy-wg- 
> > > > admin@localhost] On Behalf Of Latif Ladid ("The New 
> Internet based 
> > > > on
> > > > IPv6")
> > > > Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 9:53 AM
> > > > To: 'Bound, Jim'; 'Tony Hain'; 'PPML'; 
> address-policy-wg@localhost
> > > > Cc: 'Richard Jimmerson'; 'Davis, Terry L'; 
> > > > ollivier.robert@localhost narten@localhost 
> 'Brig, Michael 
> > > > P CIV DISA GES-E'; 'Pouffary, Yanick'; 'Green, David B RDECOM
> > > CERDEC STCD SRI'
> > > > Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Question
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The technical community should fix this one before the ITU
> > > sees this
> > > > as another chance to have a political say on the IPv6 
> addressing.
> > > > These things leak fast. My advice is that ARIN should seriously 
> > > > own this issue before the ITU turns it to a sovereignty issue,
> > > which they
> > > > could for sure win this time. I know one of their noodles
> > > is sizzling
> > > > at it.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Latif
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Bound, Jim [
	    
	    
]
> > > > Sent: 08 April 2006 14:52
> > > > To: Tony Hain; PPML; address-policy-wg@localhost
> > > > Cc: Richard Jimmerson; Latif Ladid ("The New Internet based
> > > on IPv6");
> > > > Davis, Terry L; ollivier.robert@localhost 
> narten@localhost 
> > > > Brig, Michael P CIV DISA GES-E; Pouffary, Yanick; 
> Green, David B 
> > > > RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI; Bound, Jim
> > > > Subject: RE: Question
> > > >
> > > > Tony,
> > > >
> > > > Excellent response and educational for sure.  It is my
> > > belief that the
> > > > corporate business model today for operating networks may be 
> > > > broken and I think you supported that below?  If not my 
> apologies
> > > for bad parsing?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Their models were fine for an IPv4 world where NAT was required 
> > > > and some even confuse NAT with securing ones network (and some
> > > programs in the U.S.
> > > > Government) and that is simply bad policy and view.
> > > >
> > > > In the interim can this be resolved by RIRs creating 
> some kind of 
> > > > additional wording that address reclaim will be done in
> > > manner that is
> > > > negotiable, and do no harm to corporate or government business 
> > > > operations?  This would buy us time to work on the issue
> > > and stop the
> > > > FUD around this topic?
> > > >
> > > > Also I am willing to sponsor a world wide IPv6 Forum 
> BOF on PI and 
> > > > addressing you can lead as ajunct to one of our regular
> > > meetings you
> > > > can lead for an entire day and we get the right players in
> > > the room.
> > > > So think about that as another option too.
> > > >
> > > > But do enjoy the beach this thread does not have to be
> > > resolved this
> > > > week
> > > > :--)
> > > >
> > > > Really want to hear from all of you and discussion Terry D., 
> > > > Latif, Yanick, Dave G. Mike B. etc.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > /jim
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Tony Hain [
	    
	    
]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 7:57 PM
> > > > > To: 'PPML'; address-policy-wg@localhost
> > > > > Cc: 'Richard Jimmerson'; Bound, Jim; 'Latif Ladid ("The
> > > New Internet
> > > > > based on IPv6")'; 'Davis, Terry L';
> > > ollivier.robert@localhost
> > > > > narten@localhost 'Brig, Michael P CIV DISA GES-E'; 
> Pouffary, 
> > > > > Yanick; 'Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI'
> > > > > Subject: RE: Question
> > > > >
> > > > > A public answer to a private question as I have been 
> sitting on 
> > > > > a beach for awhile without the laptop and missed some related 
> > > > > conversations ... :)
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is the outcome really open for discussion on the PI issue?
> > > > > It doesn't
> > > > > > sound like it is.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the minds of some the route scaling issue outweighs
> > > any argument
> > > > > for PI.
> > > > > When taken to its extreme, there is a valid point 
> that a broken 
> > > > > routing system serves no one. At the same time the
> > > dogmatic stance
> > > > > by the ISPs enforcing lock-in is just as broken both 
> for large 
> > > > > organizations with financial or legal requirements for
> > > operational
> > > > > stability, and the individual consumer/small business
> > > with limited
> > > > > budgets looking for true competition. The hard part is
> > > finding the
> > > > > middle ground in a way that limits the exposure to a 
> potential 
> > > > > routing collapse.
> > > > >
> > > > > I personally refuse to declare some needs legitimate and
> > > others not,
> > > > > as the only point of such differentiation is to establish a 
> > > > > power broker. When all uses are legitimate, the problem boils
> > > down to the
> > > > > technical approach that can be scaled as necessary to
> > > contain growth
> > > > > in the routing system.
> > > > > This is the logic that leads me to the bit-interleaved
> > > geo that can
> > > > > be aggregated in varying size pockets as necessary using 
> > > > > existing BGP deployments. We can start flat and implement 
> > > > > aggregation over time when a region becomes too large 
> to handle. 
> > > > > One nice
> > > side effect
> > > > > of this geo approach is that it mitigates the continuing
> > > political
> > > > > demands for sovereign rights to IPv6 space.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any aggregation approach will force the business models to 
> > > > > change from current practice. That is not as bad a 
> thing as the
> > > alarmists
> > > > > will make it out to be, because their accountants are
> > > claiming the
> > > > > current model is a broken money looser as it is (which if
> > > so means
> > > > > they will eventually change anyway). The primary
> > > difference is that
> > > > > there will need to be aggregation intermediaries between the 
> > > > > last-mile and transit providers. The current model
> > > eliminates these
> > > > > middle-men by trading off their routing mitigation
> > > service against a
> > > > > larger routing table (actually they already exist in 
> the right 
> > > > > places but are currently limited to layer2 media
> > > aggregators). The
> > > > > anti-PI bunch is trying to use social engineering to directly 
> > > > > counter the bottom line business reality that the
> > > customer will always win in the end.
> > > > > Rather than accept this situation and constructively 
> work on the 
> > > > > necessary business model and technology developments, they 
> > > > > effectively stall progress by staunchly claiming there is no 
> > > > > acceptable technical approach that works within the
> > > current business structure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Making the RIRs be the police deciding who qualifies for
> > > PI and who
> > > > > does not just adds to their workload and raises costs. The 
> > > > > beneficiaries of this gatekeeper approach are the ISPs that 
> > > > > claim they need full routing knowledge everywhere, while the
> > > cost burden
> > > > > for supporting the waste-of-time 
> qualification/evaluation work 
> > > > > is borne by the applicant.
> > > > > Given that the most vocal and organized membership in the RIR 
> > > > > community are the ISPs it is easy to understand why it would 
> > > > > seem like the PI issue is already decided as closed. I tend to
> > > believe it
> > > > > will just drag out until enough of the corporate world
> > > becomes aware
> > > > > of the
> > > > > IPv4 exhaustion in light of their growth needs that they 
> > > > > collectively appear at their RIR and demand an immediate
> > > solution.
> > > > > Unfortunately this 'wait till the last minute' tactic will 
> > > > > likely result in a reactionary quickie with its own 
> set of long
> > > term side effects.
> > > > >
> > > > > A while back I tried to hold a BOF on geo PI in the IETF, but 
> > > > > was told that
> > > > > shim6 was the anointed solution. Now that at least nanog has 
> > > > > told the IAB where to put shim6 it might be possible to get
> > > the current
> > > > > IESG to reconsider. In any case the result would be a 
> technical 
> > > > > approach that would still require RIRs to establish
> > > policies around.
> > > > > As long as they are dominated by the ISPs it will be
> > > difficult to get real PI.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tony
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> 
>