From pekkas at netcore.fi Sun Aug 1 19:35:12 2004 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 20:35:12 +0300 (EEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Policy Change Request - Allow address allocations for anycast DNS operation] (fwd) Message-ID: Following up with really old email.. [Gert:] > On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 02:11:22PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Gert Doering wrote: > > > One comment asked for "do we really need yet another special rule here", > > > and my reply would be "the current PA and PI policy doesn't permit doing > > > this without lying to the NCC", *and* DNS is really special here due to > > > protocol constraints. > > > > If you qualify for at least /24 of v4 address space, there shouldn't > > be a problem with current v4 policy? > > There is. People don't want to use part of their PA block for the > anycast announcement (due to "allocation boundary" filters) and you > won't qualify for a /24 PI with just a single IP address used inside > the block. I don't think this really matters. First, the allocation boundary filters filters filter out a lot of stuff as well. If you put them in, you should know that you might not get some advertisements. Second, even if you filter on the boundary, you'll just go to the main office, not necessarily the closest anycasting service. So, the service you get is no worse than it's today. Last, there are also those other, non-anycasted servers, so you'll be able to reach them as well. I don't clearly see why this exception is necessary, especially if folks document the more specific block appropriately in the registry. > > If you can't qualify for that amount of addresses, do we care about > > anycasting that kind of server? > > The ccTLD's office might have 500 machines in use, but the individual > instances will all only use 1 IP (or very few). I'm not sure what you meant by 1 IP -- the DNS server or some small offices? (or offices behind a NAT?) > > Remember, nothing prevents anycasting with your existing allocated > > blocks. Hence, the policy for allocating these special PI/PA prefixes > > should be at least as strict as the policy for getting PI/PA prefixes > > in the first place .. to avoid getting around policies. > > The problem in the first place is that the PI policy doesn't permit > these prefixes in the first place, due to insufficient utilization. Ok -- then we have still the PA policy left that might be useful. > [..] > > I object to this as a whole, but even if we agreed that this is > > desirable in general, I have two strong objections: > > > > (1) there is little reason for allocating a /32 IPv6 prefix except > > for getting around the IPv6 policy. Why not use the "critical > > infrastructure" /48's for this, so we can easily filter out this junk > > in our BGP :) > > We have no "critical infrastructure" /48s in RIPE land, *and* you're > not supposed to catch this in "general-purpose more-specific filters" > - which is the whole point of this excercise. > > (If you really want to filter the prefixes, you still can, as they are > supposed to be clearly tagged in the RIPE DB). Just chunk out a couple of /48's from the block where the IX addresses have been allocated? Given the reasoning above, and the fact that the servers should always also include non-anycasted addresses, I see no reason why these should be given special status -- it's not as if it's critical that these prefixes go through the filters or aelse all else breaks. That IMHO argues for similar treatment as ARIN's "critical infrastructure" prefixes: /48's which some might and some might not filter. We certainly intend to :). > > (2) this proposal takes no stance on who can request a block of > > addresses like this for his DNS servers? > > Yes. On purpose, because it was envisioned that some organizations > that are not TLD operators but still operate a high number of DNS > servers (due to having a very large number of zones, or due to > having a world-wide network, or whatever) might still meet the > spirit of the thing. Due to reasons discussed below, I strongly believe that we need restrictions here. I don't care much about giving special golden PI blocks to TLD operators, but I care even less for giving them anyone at all that comes knocking at the door! TLD operators should at least be considered (by some measure) "semi-critical" infrastructure. Big ISPs don't need these special provisions, and the net doesn't care about the small ISPs which can't get routable PI otherwise (and this would be a nice trick to get it through a loophole). In short, let's just decide on a list, if we need this in the first place. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From ncc at ripe.net Mon Aug 9 14:15:46 2004 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 14:15:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: NCC#2004080845 IPV6 Addresses pool In-Reply-To: <510895CC400C62459F9FEBBAB1A9C01210C290@herzmsg15.corp.cellcom.co.il>; from Gil Yaacoby on Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:46:37 +0200 References: <510895CC400C62459F9FEBBAB1A9C01210C290@herzmsg15.corp.cellcom.co.il> Message-ID: <200408091215.i79CFnt2000388@cow.ripe.net> Dear Gil, The following link will give you a list of all LIRs who received an IPv6 allocation from RIPE NCC. However, it is not ordered per country. http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/mem-services/general/allocs6.html Kind regards, Monique van Troost First Line Support Operator RIPE NCC On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:46:37 +0200, Gil Yaacoby wrote: > Hi , > > My name is Gil Yaacoby. I am responsible for the evaluation of > new Datacom technologies in Cellcom Israel Ltd. IPv6 is one of our > current projects.I need to find out the formal procedure to purchase an > IPv6 address > pool > > we need IPV6 Addresses pool for our cellular costumers. > I think that at this point of time Cellcom Israel Ltd can't show > bussiness case for being a LIR . > > I think getting small amount like /48 from some ISP will be good enough. > Do you know about any ISP's who can provide Cellcom IPV6 adresses pool > (In ISRAEL or outside the country)? > > Many thanks, > > Gil Yaacoby > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This e-mail message may contain confidential, commercial and privileged information or data that constitute proprietary information of Cellcom Israel Ltd. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use of this information or data by any other person is absolutely prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies. > > Thank You. > http://www.cellcom.co.il -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 206 bytes Desc: not available URL: From leo at ripe.net Mon Aug 9 17:38:03 2004 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 17:38:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs Message-ID: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The Number Resource Organisation (NRO) has published a proposal for a policy for the allocation of IPv6 address space from the IANA to the RIRs. It is intended that this proposed policy should be agreed by all RIRs' open policy fora and then approved by the ASO and ICANN as a global policy. The proposal is available on our web site at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv6.html Comment on the proposal is sought. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC From hank at mail.iucc.ac.il Mon Aug 9 19:15:29 2004 From: hank at mail.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 20:15:29 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: NCC#2004080845 IPV6 Addresses pool In-Reply-To: <200408091215.i79CFnt2000388@cow.ripe.net> References: <510895CC400C62459F9FEBBAB1A9C01210C290@herzmsg15.corp.cellcom.co.il> <200408091215.i79CFnt2000388@cow.ripe.net> Message-ID: Monique, The better place to see by country IPv6 allocations would be: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/ Specifically for Israel: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/all/?country=il Gil, There are 2 allocations in Israel. IUCC - which is an academic network - which can't provide suballocations to a commercial cellphone company and Euronet (Internet Zahav) which recently got an allocation but hasn't connected to the 6bone yet. But you knew all this from my emails to you already. :-) -Hank On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, RIPE NCC wrote: > Dear Gil, > > The following link will give you a list of all LIRs who received an > IPv6 allocation from RIPE NCC. However, it is not ordered per country. > > http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/mem-services/general/allocs6.html > > > Kind regards, > > Monique van Troost > First Line Support Operator > RIPE NCC > > On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:46:37 +0200, Gil Yaacoby wrote: > > Hi , > > > > My name is Gil Yaacoby. I am responsible for the evaluation of > > new Datacom technologies in Cellcom Israel Ltd. IPv6 is one of our > > current projects.I need to find out the formal procedure to purchase an > > IPv6 address > > pool > > > > we need IPV6 Addresses pool for our cellular costumers. > > I think that at this point of time Cellcom Israel Ltd can't show > > bussiness case for being a LIR . > > > > I think getting small amount like /48 from some ISP will be good enough. > > Do you know about any ISP's who can provide Cellcom IPV6 adresses pool > > (In ISRAEL or outside the country)? > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Gil Yaacoby > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This e-mail message may contain confidential, commercial and privileged information or data that constitute proprietary information of Cellcom Israel Ltd. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use of this information or data by any other person is absolutely prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies. > > > > Thank You. > > http://www.cellcom.co.il > -- > > From randy at psg.com Mon Aug 9 19:42:50 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 07:42:50 -1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> Message-ID: <16663.47002.612344.889512@roam.psg.com> leo, can you explain why the rirs need a time window from the iana (36 months) so much larger than lirs need from the rirs? randy From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Mon Aug 9 20:04:45 2004 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 20:04:45 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> Message-ID: <09b101c47e3b$5b2aac30$8700000a@consulintel.es> Hi Leo, I've published this at http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=676. Hopefully we can get some more inputs. Not sure if the people not subscribed could post, but I guess your admin people will get the email anyway. Regards, Jordi ---- Original Message ---- From: "leo vegoda" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 5:38 PM Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs > Dear Colleagues, > > The Number Resource Organisation (NRO) has published a proposal for a > policy for the allocation of IPv6 address space from the IANA to the > RIRs. It is intended that this proposed policy should be agreed by all > RIRs' open policy fora and then approved by the ASO and ICANN as a > global policy. > > The proposal is available on our web site at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv6.html > > Comment on the proposal is sought. > > Kind regards, ********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From jon at lawrence.org.uk Mon Aug 9 23:46:23 2004 From: jon at lawrence.org.uk (Jon Lawrence) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 22:46:23 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <16663.47002.612344.889512@roam.psg.com> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <16663.47002.612344.889512@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <200408092246.24273.jon@lawrence.org.uk> On Monday 09 August 2004 18:42, Randy Bush wrote: > leo, > > can you explain why the rirs need a time window from the iana > (36 months) so much larger than lirs need from the rirs? > > randy Randy, I read it that IANA don't see RIR's needing more than a /12 in a 36 month period - thus a /12 would at least meet the RIR's needs for the next 36 months. Seems like a much better idea than faffing about handing out a /23 every few months. Jon From pekkas at netcore.fi Tue Aug 10 08:15:14 2004 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:15:14 +0300 (EEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, leo vegoda wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > The Number Resource Organisation (NRO) has published a proposal for a > policy for the allocation of IPv6 address space from the IANA to the > RIRs. It is intended that this proposed policy should be agreed by all > RIRs' open policy fora and then approved by the ASO and ICANN as a > global policy. > > The proposal is available on our web site at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv6.html Seems like a good idea. We need to get rid of those ridiculous /23 allocations. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From barton at icann.org Tue Aug 10 01:39:04 2004 From: barton at icann.org (Doug Barton) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:39:04 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs Message-ID: <41180B18.5060104@icann.org> > On Monday 09 August 2004 18:42, Randy Bush wrote: >> leo, >> >> can you explain why the rirs need a time window from the iana >> (36 months) so much larger than lirs need from the rirs? >> >> randy > > Randy, > I read it that IANA don't see RIR's needing more than a /12 in a 36 month > period - thus a /12 would at least meet the RIR's needs for the next 36 > months. > > Seems like a much better idea than faffing about handing out a /23 every few > months. > > Jon Jon, Just to be clear, the policy as proposed is coming to you direct from the NRO, IANA has had no direct input in it's creation. I first saw this draft document myself on the APNIC sig-policy list on 4 August. http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2004/08/msg00003.html That said, we're very happy that the NRO has offered this submission as a starting place for the public dialog, and we look forward to seeing how the process plays out. While it's certainly not IANA's job to _set_ policy, we are happy to offer the benefit of our experience to anyone who asks. :) Doug -- Doug Barton General Manager, The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority From gert at space.net Tue Aug 10 09:55:04 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:55:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <80B37028-EA9F-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <80B37028-EA9F-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> Message-ID: <20040810075504.GU467@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:32:58AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Now I can see SOME value in trying to have relatively large RIR blocks, > but cutting up all non-reserved space so aggressively really doesn't > have any upsides, The *big* upside is that you can apply reasonable address distribution algorithms *inside* the RIR blocks, effectively avoiding having to give LIRs two or more allocations if they are growing slowly over time. [..] > - reserve a /12 for each RIR now (a 4 bit boundary makes DNS > delegations easier, I think a /8 is too much but that might work also) > - then, for every delegation, give RIRs enough space to each to last a > year comfortably > - evaluate whether a new delegation is needed every 3 or 4 months, > making the time of new delegations easy to predict Please don't introduce additional RIR<->ICANN loops that don't serve ANY benefits except pay bureaucrats. If you want to go with /12s, hand out the /12 per RIR *now*. Fully, without any "reservation". /8s would be better. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65398 (60210) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From iljitsch at muada.com Tue Aug 10 09:32:58 2004 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:32:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> Message-ID: <80B37028-EA9F-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> On 9-aug-04, at 17:38, leo vegoda wrote: > The Number Resource Organisation (NRO) has published a proposal for a > policy for the allocation of IPv6 address space from the IANA to the > RIRs. It is intended that this proposed policy should be agreed by all > RIRs' open policy fora and then approved by the ASO and ICANN as a > global policy. Reserving a /6 for each RIR seems like the other extreme to me. In IPv4 we have around 220 /8s that have been given out to RIRs pretty much one at a time in the past. In IPv6 we effectively have 8 /6s. This means that as a percentage of total available space, the RIRs get more than 25 times more IPv6 space than they've been given IPv4 space in the past, even though a v4 /8 will accommodate at most 16.8M end-user assignments (less in practice) while a v6 /6 allows for AT LEAST 4.4T (yes, that's 10^12) end-user assignments. Now I can see SOME value in trying to have relatively large RIR blocks, but cutting up all non-reserved space so aggressively really doesn't have any upsides, and we never know whether we're going to need any really large blocks in the future. Also, doubling every time is ok for a while, but it pretty much guarantees that you're going to have way too much space on your hands at some point. A more reasonable policy would be: - reserve a /12 for each RIR now (a 4 bit boundary makes DNS delegations easier, I think a /8 is too much but that might work also) - then, for every delegation, give RIRs enough space to each to last a year comfortably - evaluate whether a new delegation is needed every 3 or 4 months, making the time of new delegations easy to predict From gert at space.net Tue Aug 10 10:16:25 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:16:25 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20040810081625.GV467@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 05:38:03PM +0200, leo vegoda wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv6.html Very reasonable draft. - starting with a /12 is "big enough" for the near future (there are a couple of /20 allocation requests in the pipeline, but a /12 can fulfill 128 of them before reaching 50%) - adding individual bits, growing into the /6, ensures that the stuff stays aggregateable-by-region - *if* it should become obvious that a couple of special-case-blocks are required in the future (like 6to4's 2002::/16), this can be taken out of 2000::/6 or 3800::/5. - *if* a new RIR pops up in the not-so-far future, it might become necessary to split up the /6s into /7s or /8s, but this will not do any harm (after all: this is only *reserved*, and filled from the bottom - so until the first RIR fills up a /7, the second half of all /6s will still be completely untouched). Personally, I would tend to start with /8s (instead of /12s), but I know that this is way too radical for the conservative minds out there. Based on that, a /12 is a reasonable compromise. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65398 (60210) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From gert at space.net Tue Aug 10 11:31:28 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:31:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <20040810092657.GA22124@bfib.ipng.nl> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <20040810081625.GV467@Space.Net> <20040810092657.GA22124@bfib.ipng.nl> Message-ID: <20040810093128.GF467@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 11:26:57AM +0200, Pim van Pelt wrote: > I think that reserving /8s is better than /6s. The DNS issue is one > thing, the scalability question in (1) is another. A /8 should be enough > for a RIR in the midterm future, if a RIR explodes (IP space wise) they > can always be plugged into another /8 in the future. I think this will > be a more stable situation than scaling down from /6s to /7s (as Gert > suggested). However you label it (/8s that can grow into a /6, or /6s that can be shrunk into /7s, if needed) doesn't make a real difference. The important thing about the "/6 approach" is that the initial /12s (growing to /8s) are allocated with so much room in between that you *can* grow to a /7 or /6, if necessary, and don't have to start a second (or even more) block per RIR. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65398 (60210) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From pim at ipng.nl Tue Aug 10 11:26:57 2004 From: pim at ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:26:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <20040810081625.GV467@Space.Net> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <20040810081625.GV467@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20040810092657.GA22124@bfib.ipng.nl> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:16:25AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: | Hi, | | On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 05:38:03PM +0200, leo vegoda wrote: | > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv6.html | | Very reasonable draft. I agree. I have two questions though; 1. Are there no expectations on having more RIRs in the lifespan of the 001 segment of IPv6 space ? ie, will we run out of reserved blocks ? I am very worried we may indeed run out. 2. What's the purpose of "various". Please give some detail about what can and can not fit into this /6. I think that reserving /8s is better than /6s. The DNS issue is one thing, the scalability question in (1) is another. A /8 should be enough for a RIR in the midterm future, if a RIR explodes (IP space wise) they can always be plugged into another /8 in the future. I think this will be a more stable situation than scaling down from /6s to /7s (as Gert suggested). -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim at ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From iljitsch at muada.com Tue Aug 10 12:03:08 2004 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:03:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <20040810093128.GF467@Space.Net> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <20040810081625.GV467@Space.Net> <20040810092657.GA22124@bfib.ipng.nl> <20040810093128.GF467@Space.Net> Message-ID: <7AAC81D8-EAB4-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> On 10-aug-04, at 11:31, Gert Doering wrote: > The important thing about the "/6 approach" is that the initial /12s > (growing to /8s) are allocated with so much room in between that you > *can* grow to a /7 or /6, if necessary, and don't have to start a > second (or even more) block per RIR. Why is that important? From gert at space.net Tue Aug 10 13:19:51 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 13:19:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <7AAC81D8-EAB4-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <20040810081625.GV467@Space.Net> <20040810092657.GA22124@bfib.ipng.nl> <20040810093128.GF467@Space.Net> <7AAC81D8-EAB4-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> Message-ID: <20040810111951.GH467@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:03:08PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 10-aug-04, at 11:31, Gert Doering wrote: > > >The important thing about the "/6 approach" is that the initial /12s > >(growing to /8s) are allocated with so much room in between that you > >*can* grow to a /7 or /6, if necessary, and don't have to start a > >second (or even more) block per RIR. > > Why is that important? Because you want to avoid fragmentation. Please read up the RIPE-161 thread in the mailing list archives. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65398 (60210) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From plzak at arin.net Tue Aug 10 13:46:40 2004 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:46:40 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <41180B18.5060104@icann.org> Message-ID: <20040810114640.69490CF39A@mercury.arin.net> Doug, You are mistaken. The NRO has not submitted a proposal to anyone. Leo's message said that the NRO had published a proposal. The proposal did not originate from the NRO. It originated in the APNIC community. Anyone, worldwide is invited and encouraged to participate in any of the policy fora (email list and public policy meeting) conducted by the various RIRs. After consensus is reached in all of the regions the NRO will then become involved by being the mailman in forwarding it to the ASO Address Council so that they may submit it to the ICANN Board for adoption as a global policy. After the policy is adopted, ICANN, performing the IANA function, will allocate IPv6 address space to the RIRs in accordance with this policy. Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Doug Barton > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 7:39 PM > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address > space from IANA to RIRs > > > On Monday 09 August 2004 18:42, Randy Bush wrote: > >> leo, > >> > >> can you explain why the rirs need a time window from the iana > >> (36 months) so much larger than lirs need from the rirs? > >> > >> randy > > > > Randy, > > I read it that IANA don't see RIR's needing more than a /12 in a 36 > month > > period - thus a /12 would at least meet the RIR's needs for the next 36 > > months. > > > > Seems like a much better idea than faffing about handing out a /23 every > few > > months. > > > > Jon > > Jon, > > Just to be clear, the policy as proposed is coming to you direct from > the NRO, IANA has had no direct input in it's creation. I first saw this > draft document myself on the APNIC sig-policy list on 4 August. > http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig- > policy/archive/2004/08/msg00003.html > > That said, we're very happy that the NRO has offered this submission as > a starting place for the public dialog, and we look forward to seeing > how the process plays out. While it's certainly not IANA's job to _set_ > policy, we are happy to offer the benefit of our experience to anyone > who asks. :) > > Doug > > -- > Doug Barton > General Manager, The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority > From iljitsch at muada.com Tue Aug 10 13:48:12 2004 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 13:48:12 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <20040810111951.GH467@Space.Net> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <20040810081625.GV467@Space.Net> <20040810092657.GA22124@bfib.ipng.nl> <20040810093128.GF467@Space.Net> <7AAC81D8-EAB4-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <20040810111951.GH467@Space.Net> Message-ID: <285FBBD9-EAC3-11D8-B7FC-000A95CD987A@muada.com> On 10-aug-04, at 13:19, Gert Doering wrote: >> Why is that important? > Because you want to avoid fragmentation. Please read up the RIPE-161 > thread in the mailing list archives. There is this new thing now. It's called hypertext. It's really cool. (In other words: please supply a link, as this is impossible to find.) From chbm at cprm.net Tue Aug 10 14:17:33 2004 From: chbm at cprm.net (Carlos Morgado) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 13:17:33 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <285FBBD9-EAC3-11D8-B7FC-000A95CD987A@muada.com> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <20040810081625.GV467@Space.Net> <20040810092657.GA22124@bfib.ipng.nl> <20040810093128.GF467@Space.Net> <7AAC81D8-EAB4-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <20040810111951.GH467@Space.Net> <285FBBD9-EAC3-11D8-B7FC-000A95CD987A@muada.com> Message-ID: <20040810121733.GA8581@cprm.net> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 01:48:12PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 10-aug-04, at 13:19, Gert Doering wrote: > > >>Why is that important? > > >Because you want to avoid fragmentation. Please read up the RIPE-161 > >thread in the mailing list archives. > > There is this new thing now. It's called hypertext. It's really cool. > > (In other words: please supply a link, as this is impossible to find.) There is this new thing now. It's called Google. It's really cool. -- Carlos Morgado - Internet Engineering - Phone +351 214146594 GPG key: 0x75E451E2 FP: B98B 222B F276 18C0 266B 599D 93A1 A3FB 75E4 51E2 The views expressed above do not bind my employer. From nils at steering-group.net Tue Aug 10 14:21:32 2004 From: nils at steering-group.net (Nils Ketelsen) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:21:32 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <20040810075504.GU467@Space.Net> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <80B37028-EA9F-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <20040810075504.GU467@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20040810122132.GB26206@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:55:04AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > If you want to go with /12s, hand out the /12 per RIR *now*. Fully, > without any "reservation". /8s would be better. Repeat the mistakes done in IPv4, only this time by assigning everything to the RIRs instead of directly to the user? Good plan. Has nobody learned from the mistaked made in the past? We can not say if there will be another assigment policy then IANA->RIR->LIR in maybe 20 or 30 years (thats the time IPv6 has a realistic chance to gain real speed). Then the RIRs sit on their /8s wihtout really needing it just like the organizations that got direct assignments today. Nils -- "Wenn alle Stricke rei?en, dann h?ng ich mich auf!" [So gesehen an einer Toilettenwand] From gert at space.net Tue Aug 10 14:34:21 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:34:21 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <20040810122132.GB26206@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <80B37028-EA9F-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <20040810075504.GU467@Space.Net> <20040810122132.GB26206@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> Message-ID: <20040810123421.GM467@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:21:32PM +0200, Nils Ketelsen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:55:04AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > > If you want to go with /12s, hand out the /12 per RIR *now*. Fully, > > without any "reservation". /8s would be better. > > Repeat the mistakes done in IPv4, only this time by assigning everything to > the RIRs instead of directly to the user? Good plan. Has nobody learned from > the mistaked made in the past? We *have* learned. Fragmentation is a bad thing. > We can not say if there will be another assigment policy then IANA->RIR->LIR > in maybe 20 or 30 years (thats the time IPv6 has a realistic chance to gain > real speed). > > Then the RIRs sit on their /8s wihtout really needing it just like the > organizations that got direct assignments today. So what? If every RIR is wasting a /8, then we have lost 5/64 out of FP001. Even if we completely mess up FP001, we have 6 more prefixes to get it right, based on "20 or 30 years experience". But we need to *get going* to *gain* that experience, instead of standing still, waiting for enlightenment to happen. These "we must do it right or not do it at all" worries have slowed down IPv6 deployment tremendously in the last years, and have resulted in this wonderful /23 ICANN->RIR allocation policy. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65398 (60210) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Tue Aug 10 15:22:51 2004 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:22:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <285FBBD9-EAC3-11D8-B7FC-000A95CD987A@muada.com> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <20040810081625.GV467@Space.Net> <20040810092657.GA22124@bfib.ipng.nl> <20040810093128.GF467@Space.Net> <7AAC81D8-EAB4-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <20040810111951.GH467@Space.Net> <285FBBD9-EAC3-11D8-B7FC-000A95CD987A@muada.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20040810152049.03500ec0@localhost> At 10/08/2004 13:48, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >On 10-aug-04, at 13:19, Gert Doering wrote: > >>>Why is that important? > >>Because you want to avoid fragmentation. Please read up the RIPE-161 >>thread in the mailing list archives. > >There is this new thing now. It's called hypertext. It's really cool. > >(In other words: please supply a link, as this is impossible to find.) It is ripe-261, actually, see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-sparse.html. You can find the indes to the RIPE documents store at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-sparse.html. cheers, Axel From iljitsch at muada.com Tue Aug 10 15:22:31 2004 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:22:31 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <20040810121733.GA8581@cprm.net> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <20040810081625.GV467@Space.Net> <20040810092657.GA22124@bfib.ipng.nl> <20040810093128.GF467@Space.Net> <7AAC81D8-EAB4-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <20040810111951.GH467@Space.Net> <285FBBD9-EAC3-11D8-B7FC-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <20040810121733.GA8581@cprm.net> Message-ID: <553C01C8-EAD0-11D8-A17C-000A95CD987A@muada.com> On 10-aug-04, at 14:17, Carlos Morgado wrote: >> (In other words: please supply a link, as this is impossible to find.) > There is this new thing now. It's called Google. It's really cool. You know what? Don't bother with a link. I'm not wasting my time on old discussions. If you have something to say, say it. Don't say you've said it before, I don't care. From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Tue Aug 10 15:40:48 2004 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:40:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <20040810081625.GV467@Space.Net> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <20040810081625.GV467@Space.Net> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 05:38:03PM +0200, leo vegoda wrote: >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv6.html > > Very reasonable draft. > > - starting with a /12 is "big enough" for the near future (there are > a couple of /20 allocation requests in the pipeline, but a /12 can > fulfill 128 of them before reaching 50%) > > - adding individual bits, growing into the /6, ensures that the stuff > stays aggregateable-by-region Agree. And this also more or less reflects the discussions we have had at least in the RIPE region. > Personally, I would tend to start with /8s (instead of /12s), but I > know > that this is way too radical for the conservative minds out there. > Based > on that, a /12 is a reasonable compromise. I don't think that starting with /8s would give much more benefit. What is not needed is strict and good assignment algorithms inside the RIRs. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQRjQZKarNKXTPFCVEQLx3ACeLTE839wgtEVLeTcpe66mTDUTx/wAn1ym upsVmawRGsPvRgQTHNQ5Myd/ =DG57 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Tue Aug 10 15:46:24 2004 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:46:24 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.2.20040810152049.03500ec0@localhost> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <20040810081625.GV467@Space.Net> <20040810092657.GA22124@bfib.ipng.nl> <20040810093128.GF467@Space.Net> <7AAC81D8-EAB4-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <20040810111951.GH467@Space.Net> <285FBBD9-EAC3-11D8-B7FC-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <6.1.1.1.2.20040810152049.03500ec0@localhost> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20040810154558.03753640@localhost> At 10/08/2004 15:22, Axel Pawlik wrote: >You can find the indes to the RIPE documents store at >http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-sparse.html. Make that http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/index.html. Axel From randy at psg.com Tue Aug 10 17:48:48 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 05:48:48 -1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <80B37028-EA9F-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <20040810075504.GU467@Space.Net> <20040810122132.GB26206@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> Message-ID: <16664.61024.16211.327971@roam.psg.com> > Repeat the mistakes done in IPv4, only this time by assigning everything to > the RIRs instead of directly to the user? Good plan. Has nobody learned from > the mistaked made in the past? > > We can not say if there will be another assigment policy then IANA->RIR->LIR > in maybe 20 or 30 years (thats the time IPv6 has a realistic chance to gain > real speed). > > Then the RIRs sit on their /8s wihtout really needing it just like the > organizations that got direct assignments today. bingo! and i do not buy the assumption that the rirs need no oversight, just as i do not buy that the iana does. and i do not buy that these policy fora mailing lists provide that oversight any more than i buy that the equivalent ones in icann provide the same for the iana. randy From gert at space.net Tue Aug 10 20:50:04 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:50:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <16664.61024.16211.327971@roam.psg.com> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <80B37028-EA9F-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <20040810075504.GU467@Space.Net> <20040810122132.GB26206@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> <16664.61024.16211.327971@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <20040810185004.GP467@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 05:48:48AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: > and i do not buy the assumption that the rirs need no oversight, > just as i do not buy that the iana does. and i do not buy that > these policy fora mailing lists provide that oversight any more > than i buy that the equivalent ones in icann provide the same > for the iana. So what are your proposals to improve the system, then? I agree with you that ICANN doesn't work. As for the RIPE NCC, at least in the last few years, things have been reasonably well - not perfect, IPv6 things have been too conservative and too slow, but overall "a situation people can live with". Which is pretty much the most that can be expected from such a sort of "sort-of grass-roots buerocracy". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65398 (60210) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From randy at psg.com Tue Aug 10 22:03:57 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:03:57 -1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <80B37028-EA9F-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <20040810075504.GU467@Space.Net> <20040810122132.GB26206@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> <16664.61024.16211.327971@roam.psg.com> <20040810185004.GP467@Space.Net> Message-ID: <16665.10797.178472.659336@roam.psg.com> >> and i do not buy the assumption that the rirs need no oversight, >> just as i do not buy that the iana does. and i do not buy that >> these policy fora mailing lists provide that oversight any more >> than i buy that the equivalent ones in icann provide the same >> for the iana. > So what are your proposals to improve the system, then? what's broken? the rirs watch the lirs. iana watches the rirs. icann watches the iana. > I agree with you that ICANN doesn't work. you are agreeing with a statement i did not make. i may have 'issues' with the icann, but in general they have not managed to break the internet as much as a lot of other players. > As for the RIPE NCC, at least in the last few years, things have > been reasonably well and in the next few years? things go in cycles. that is why we should be relatively conservative and have oversight and cooperation. > IPv6 things have been too conservative oh, you have run out of space? > and too slow i thought you said that ripe was working well? > but overall "a situation people can live with". Which is pretty > much the most that can be expected from such a sort of "sort-of > grass-roots buerocracy". i just don't buy the 'grass roots' stuff for the rirs any more than i buy it for icann or the government in washington dc. wake up and smell the coffee; this is not the internet of our youth. randy From gert at space.net Tue Aug 10 22:39:05 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:39:05 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <16665.10797.178472.659336@roam.psg.com> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <80B37028-EA9F-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <20040810075504.GU467@Space.Net> <20040810122132.GB26206@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> <16664.61024.16211.327971@roam.psg.com> <20040810185004.GP467@Space.Net> <16665.10797.178472.659336@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <20040810203905.GW467@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:03:57AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: > >> and i do not buy the assumption that the rirs need no oversight, > >> just as i do not buy that the iana does. and i do not buy that > >> these policy fora mailing lists provide that oversight any more > >> than i buy that the equivalent ones in icann provide the same > >> for the iana. > > So what are your proposals to improve the system, then? > > what's broken? The current mess regarding IPv6 allocations to the RIRs is. People have to wait for 8 weeks for their /20s because RIRs can't issue reasonably-sized address blocks on their own, without having to fallback to ICANN (who are hiding behind a 6-year-old RFC without showing any initiative to get the situation clarified or improved). The /23 allocation granularity is plain ridiculous, which has been voiced *very* clearly by the communities, with just no reaction. > the rirs watch the lirs. iana watches the rirs. > icann watches the iana. And who is watching ICANN? > > I agree with you that ICANN doesn't work. > > you are agreeing with a statement i did not make. i may have > 'issues' with the icann, but in general they have not managed > to break the internet as much as a lot of other players. As who, out of the parties in question would that be, if I may ask? > > As for the RIPE NCC, at least in the last few years, things have > > been reasonably well > > and in the next few years? things go in cycles. that is why we > should be relatively conservative and have oversight and > cooperation. IPv6 policy, as of today, is more than "releatively" conservative. > > IPv6 things have been too conservative > oh, you have run out of space? I haven't, but people tell me that I'm supposed to build hierarchy into my network, give every customer an insanely large address block *and* do all this out of a /32. Which will work for smallish ISPs like us, for the foreseeable future - but the question remains: what is gained by handing out /32s? A chance to reach 2^29 routing table entries (which would be the result if all of FP001 is handed out as /32s)? Being too conservative on address block size which *will* lead to additional routing table entries. Note that I'm not advocating to give each ISP a /12 or even a /16 - but something better balanced (a /24, for example) would be, umm, "better balanced". > > and too slow > i thought you said that ripe was working well? Don't misunderstand me on purpose, please. I wrote: > > but overall "a situation people can live with". Which is pretty - by which I meant to say "everbody will be unhappy about details, but the amount of unhappiness is low enough so people don't stand up and shout" > > much the most that can be expected from such a sort of "sort-of > > grass-roots buerocracy". > > i just don't buy the 'grass roots' stuff for the rirs any more > than i buy it for icann or the government in washington dc. wake > up and smell the coffee; this is not the internet of our youth. I'm not *that* old - when I entered into this, the RIR system was already pretty much existing as it is today. So maybe everything was better in your youth, I don't know. I found a system that is bureocratic, slow, and very hard to move - but it *does* move if people find something important enough (<<< now *this* is something to complain about, people that don't care...), and the bureaucracy *can* be contained. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65398 (60210) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Tue Aug 10 18:01:46 2004 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:01:46 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <16664.61024.16211.327971@roam.psg.com> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <80B37028-EA9F-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <20040810075504.GU467@Space.Net> <20040810122132.GB26206@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> <16664.61024.16211.327971@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <20040810160146.GB16136@vacation.karoshi.com.> > and i do not buy the assumption that the rirs need no oversight, > just as i do not buy that the iana does. and i do not buy that > these policy fora mailing lists provide that oversight any more > than i buy that the equivalent ones in icann provide the same > for the iana. > > randy so... where does the needed oversight come from? --bill From randy at psg.com Wed Aug 11 01:39:20 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:39:20 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <16663.47002.612344.889512@roam.psg.com> <200408092246.24273.jon@lawrence.org.uk> Message-ID: <16665.23720.926036.641285@roam.psg.com> > I read it that IANA don't see RIR's needing more than a /12 in a 36 month > period - thus a /12 would at least meet the RIR's needs for the next 36 > months. > > Seems like a much better idea than faffing about handing out a /23 every few > months. i'll be blunt. this apnic proposal is still the same geoff and paul land grab. with the doubling algorithm, the proposal would have all of ipv6 space to the rirs in a few short years. they failed to get all of fp=001 allocated to the rirs in a block, so have a new way to get it in a few pieces. given that fp=001 is supposed to last decades, and we don't know decades of internet governance (what once used to be called stewardship) reliability, this seems unwise. randy From randy at psg.com Wed Aug 11 01:44:42 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:44:42 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <80B37028-EA9F-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <20040810075504.GU467@Space.Net> <20040810122132.GB26206@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> <16664.61024.16211.327971@roam.psg.com> <20040810185004.GP467@Space.Net> <16665.10797.178472.659336@roam.psg.com> <20040810203905.GW467@Space.Net> Message-ID: <16665.24042.430675.95505@roam.psg.com> >>> IPv6 things have been too conservative >> oh, you have run out of space? > > I haven't, but people tell me that I'm supposed to build hierarchy into > my network, give every customer an insanely large address block *and* > do all this out of a /32. Which will work for smallish ISPs like us, > for the foreseeable future - but the question remains: what is gained > by handing out /32s? A chance to reach 2^29 routing table entries > (which would be the result if all of FP001 is handed out as /32s)? > > Being too conservative on address block size which *will* lead to > additional routing table entries. > > Note that I'm not advocating to give each ISP a /12 or even a /16 - but > something better balanced (a /24, for example) would be, umm, "better > balanced". perhaps allocation should be needs-based as opposed to these fixed blocks? both at the rir and the lir levels. after all, why are we paying for all those hostmasters if not to help make some intelligent decisions? randy From jon at lawrence.org.uk Wed Aug 11 10:04:21 2004 From: jon at lawrence.org.uk (Jon Lawrence) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:04:21 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <16665.23720.926036.641285@roam.psg.com> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <200408092246.24273.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <16665.23720.926036.641285@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <200408110904.21749.jon@lawrence.org.uk> On Wednesday 11 August 2004 00:39, Randy Bush wrote: > i'll be blunt. this apnic proposal is still the same geoff and paul > land grab. with the doubling algorithm, the proposal would have all of > ipv6 space to the rirs in a few short years. > > randy Yes, doubling does seem unwise. It would make sense (to me anyway) that once xx% of a /12 is allocated then another /12 is issued to the RIR. Jon From randy at psg.com Wed Aug 11 10:18:14 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 01:18:14 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <200408092246.24273.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <16665.23720.926036.641285@roam.psg.com> <200408110904.21749.jon@lawrence.org.uk> Message-ID: <16665.54854.741960.641900@ran.psg.com> > It would make sense (to me anyway) that once xx% of a /12 is > allocated then another /12 is issued to the RIR. withholding judgement of the wisdom of a /12, and just using it as an example. it would seem sensible that the xx% be 100% less the expected burn rate for the time it takes to allocate a new block, plus some fudge. i.e. if iana can allocate in a week, then 90% would seem reasonable. if it takes the iana a year, then a much smaller percentile. and before we start throwing stones at the iana, it would be interesting to actually know the mean and variance of queue times of the iana and the various rirs over the last decade. my personal experience would not suggest that anyone could be particularly proud. randy From dr at cluenet.de Wed Aug 11 10:29:02 2004 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:29:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <200408110904.21749.jon@lawrence.org.uk>; from jon@lawrence.org.uk on Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 09:04:21AM +0100 References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <200408092246.24273.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <16665.23720.926036.641285@roam.psg.com> <200408110904.21749.jon@lawrence.org.uk> Message-ID: <20040811102902.A18246@homebase.cluenet.de> On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 09:04:21AM +0100, Jon Lawrence wrote: > Yes, doubling does seem unwise. > It would make sense (to me anyway) that once xx% of a /12 is allocated then > another /12 is issued to the RIR. Indeed. I see no point in unconditional doubling. I'm pretty confident that /12 blocks are large enough to serve a RIR long enough so that ordering a new /12 is not hampering anything. My suggestion would be to set aside a /8 per RIR (perhaps also a DNS reverse delegation for that) and allocate /12s to the RIRs upon their request. A RIR qualifies for a new /12 block as soon as nn% usage of the current /12 block is reached. nn might be 50% or more. As Randy suggests, the percentage should be low enough so that the RIRs can get new space without delaying allocation to LIRs (as it happens nowadays). Best regards, Daniel From gert at space.net Wed Aug 11 11:12:15 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:12:15 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <16665.23720.926036.641285@roam.psg.com> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <16663.47002.612344.889512@roam.psg.com> <200408092246.24273.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <16665.23720.926036.641285@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <20040811091215.GD467@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:39:20PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > > I read it that IANA don't see RIR's needing more than a /12 in a 36 month > > period - thus a /12 would at least meet the RIR's needs for the next 36 > > months. > > > > Seems like a much better idea than faffing about handing out a /23 every few > > months. > > i'll be blunt. this apnic proposal is still the same geoff and paul > land grab. with the doubling algorithm, the proposal would have all of > ipv6 space to the rirs in a few short years. "if they manage to get 50% of it distributed to their LIRs". What makes you assume that this will happen? If I look at the IPv4 address distribution rules of the past 5 years, the trend was clearly towards being more and more conservative. Given the (current) IPv6 policy, I hardly see a way to get a /8 filled (this would be 2^24 /32s, and even 2^12=4096 /20s, which is roughly the number of members the RIRs have - and most of them will certainly not qualify for a /20 any time soon). > they failed to get all of fp=001 allocated to the rirs in a block, RIPE-261 actually had some clever ideas behind (the binary chop algorithm to make sure even the largest ISPs only need one single v6 prefix), but was refused from the community for other reasons (people wanted to *see* which region a prefix belongs to). A large part of the community seems to be trusting the RIRs a *lot* more than ICANN, btw. > so have a new way to get it in > a few pieces. given that fp=001 is supposed to last decades, and we > don't know decades of internet governance (what once used to be called > stewardship) reliability, this seems unwise. So am I right in interpreting this as "as we don't know whether the way forward is the right way, let's stop moving altogether"? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65398 (60210) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From gert at space.net Wed Aug 11 11:18:36 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:18:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <16665.24042.430675.95505@roam.psg.com> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <80B37028-EA9F-11D8-9A02-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <20040810075504.GU467@Space.Net> <20040810122132.GB26206@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> <16664.61024.16211.327971@roam.psg.com> <20040810185004.GP467@Space.Net> <16665.10797.178472.659336@roam.psg.com> <20040810203905.GW467@Space.Net> <16665.24042.430675.95505@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <20040811091836.GE467@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:44:42PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > perhaps allocation should be needs-based as opposed to these fixed > blocks? both at the rir and the lir levels. after all, why are we > paying for all those hostmasters if not to help make some intelligent > decisions? Unless I'm seriously mistaken, quite a number of people, you among them, are complaining about the high amount of bureaucracy. Now, what is it that you want? *More* bureaucrats, or less of them? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65398 (60210) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From jon at lawrence.org.uk Wed Aug 11 11:59:17 2004 From: jon at lawrence.org.uk (Jon Lawrence) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:59:17 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <16665.54854.741960.641900@ran.psg.com> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <200408110904.21749.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <16665.54854.741960.641900@ran.psg.com> Message-ID: <200408111059.17180.jon@lawrence.org.uk> On Wednesday 11 August 2004 09:18, Randy Bush wrote: > > It would make sense (to me anyway) that once xx% of a /12 is > > allocated then another /12 is issued to the RIR. > > withholding judgement of the wisdom of a /12, and just using it > as an example. it would seem sensible that the xx% be 100% > less the expected burn rate for the time it takes to allocate a > new block, plus some fudge. i.e. if iana can allocate in a > week, then 90% would seem reasonable. if it takes the iana a > year, then a much smaller percentile. > > and before we start throwing stones at the iana, it would be > interesting to actually know the mean and variance of queue > times of the iana and the various rirs over the last decade. > my personal experience would not suggest that anyone could > be particularly proud. > > randy Those figures would probably be useful and would seem a sensible way of deciding the % which must be allocated before a new block was issued. Rather than a /12 perhaps it ought to be that the RIR's apply to iana for a block of /x size. With /x being expected to last the RIR iro 36 months. Jon From nils at druecke.strg-alt-entf.org Wed Aug 11 14:50:51 2004 From: nils at druecke.strg-alt-entf.org (Nils Ketelsen) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:50:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <20040811091215.GD467@Space.Net> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <16663.47002.612344.889512@roam.psg.com> <200408092246.24273.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <16665.23720.926036.641285@roam.psg.com> <20040811091215.GD467@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20040811125051.GA30299@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:12:15AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > so have a new way to get it in > > a few pieces. given that fp=001 is supposed to last decades, and we > > don't know decades of internet governance (what once used to be called > > stewardship) reliability, this seems unwise. > > So am I right in interpreting this as "as we don't know whether the way > forward is the right way, let's stop moving altogether"? I interpret it as "we are driving in fog and don't know the road ahead, lets better wear a safety belt". And I do not see why assigning larger blocks to the RIRs would speed up the IPv6 deployment. I see absolutely no need in assigning gigantic netblocks (like /8s) to the RIRs. The few RIRs now do not at all mean, that there will be only few in 20 years. Then we might have NIRs (N=National). In that case we already need around 150 /8s? Or we might have PIRs (P=planetary)? Or we have something that does not end in IR at all? We should keep organizational scalability in mind as much as technical scalability. Both are equally important, so ignoring one of the two seems like a mistake to me. I would even go so far as to say that in the future most likely the technical scalability issues regarding Address assignment will be smaller then they are today (by looking at the technical improvements regarding possible routing table size over the last 20 years). Nils -- [Bananenweizen] Denn es l?uft dem einzigen wichtigen Menschenrecht zuwider, das Deutschland hervorgebracht hat, n?mlich dem deutschen Reinheitsgebot. [Harald Zils in de.alt.arnooo] From gert at space.net Wed Aug 11 15:37:57 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:37:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <20040811125051.GA30299@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <16663.47002.612344.889512@roam.psg.com> <200408092246.24273.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <16665.23720.926036.641285@roam.psg.com> <20040811091215.GD467@Space.Net> <20040811125051.GA30299@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> Message-ID: <20040811133757.GZ467@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 02:50:51PM +0200, Nils Ketelsen wrote: > > > so have a new way to get it in > > > a few pieces. given that fp=001 is supposed to last decades, and we > > > don't know decades of internet governance (what once used to be called > > > stewardship) reliability, this seems unwise. > > > > So am I right in interpreting this as "as we don't know whether the way > > forward is the right way, let's stop moving altogether"? > > I interpret it as "we are driving in fog and don't know the road ahead, lets > better wear a safety belt". And I do not see why assigning larger blocks to > the RIRs would speed up the IPv6 deployment. > > I see absolutely no need in assigning gigantic netblocks (like /8s) to the > RIRs. The few RIRs now do not at all mean, that there will be only few in 20 > years. Then we might have NIRs (N=National). In that case we already need > around 150 /8s? Or we might have PIRs (P=planetary)? Or we have something > that does not end in IR at all? Nothing in the proposed policy document prevents this. The /6s is *reserved* for a respective RIR, and will be used if it needs to be. If a RIR never outgrows its /12, the remaining 65 /12s inside the /6 will be never touched. The benefit in carving up the space now is that each RIR will effectively work from one contiguous block (ignoring the 2001::/23 swamp), thus enabling people (who *have* expressed interest in this) to be able to apply filters (of any sort) by region. Besides this, I don't really see a "we will have 150 NIRs on global level" structure - maybe NIRs below the RIR (as APNIC does it, which is a can of worms on its own), but not on global level - such a structure will never be able to come up with anything resembling a global policy (see the last IPv6 policy discussion - it's hard enough with 5 communities that need to come up with something common). > We should keep organizational scalability in mind as much as technical > scalability. Both are equally important, so ignoring one of the two seems > like a mistake to me. I would even go so far as to say that in the future > most likely the technical scalability issues regarding Address assignment > will be smaller then they are today (by looking at the technical > improvements regarding possible routing table size over the last 20 years). So what do you propose? Keep the /23-allocation process, which is really annoying larger networks today? Please stop argueing "let's not do that!" without proposals how to achieve the goal: fix the current ICANN -> RIR allocation mess, *AND* build a system that can at least try to achieve "one IPv6 block per LIR" even for LIRs that grow over time (and for that, you need *lots* of address space at the RIR level, to keep some space between LIR allocations). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65398 (60210) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From nils at druecke.strg-alt-entf.org Wed Aug 11 16:01:32 2004 From: nils at druecke.strg-alt-entf.org (Nils Ketelsen) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:01:32 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <20040811133757.GZ467@Space.Net> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <16663.47002.612344.889512@roam.psg.com> <200408092246.24273.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <16665.23720.926036.641285@roam.psg.com> <20040811091215.GD467@Space.Net> <20040811125051.GA30299@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> <20040811133757.GZ467@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20040811140132.GA30621@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 03:37:57PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > I see absolutely no need in assigning gigantic netblocks (like /8s) to the > > RIRs. The few RIRs now do not at all mean, that there will be only few in 20 > > years. Then we might have NIRs (N=National). In that case we already need > > around 150 /8s? Or we might have PIRs (P=planetary)? Or we have something > > that does not end in IR at all? > > Nothing in the proposed policy document prevents this. Sorry, I misunderstood you then. I thought you were proposing to assign a /8 to the RIR directly from start on. I actually like the idea of making the assignments for the current RIRs far apart from each other allowing their block to grow or to assign the space in between to other organizations should it move in this direction. And making assignments that will most likely last for the next 3 years seems to be a reasonable value. Planning further ahead is not making sense anyway, as then we are in the area of wild guessing. So if the ripe can show a need for a /12 in the next 3 years give them one. If they can not, make it a /16 or a /20 or whatever the ripe will need. Same goes for the other RIRs. Nils -- Hast du das auch etwas deutlicher, oder bist du das Orakel von Jena? [Joerg Moeller zu Lutz Donnerhacke in de.admin.net-abuse.news] From gert at space.net Wed Aug 11 16:32:14 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:32:14 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <20040811140132.GA30621@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <16663.47002.612344.889512@roam.psg.com> <200408092246.24273.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <16665.23720.926036.641285@roam.psg.com> <20040811091215.GD467@Space.Net> <20040811125051.GA30299@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> <20040811133757.GZ467@Space.Net> <20040811140132.GA30621@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> Message-ID: <20040811143214.GD467@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 04:01:32PM +0200, Nils Ketelsen wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 03:37:57PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > > > I see absolutely no need in assigning gigantic netblocks (like /8s) to the > > > RIRs. The few RIRs now do not at all mean, that there will be only few in 20 > > > years. Then we might have NIRs (N=National). In that case we already need > > > around 150 /8s? Or we might have PIRs (P=planetary)? Or we have something > > > that does not end in IR at all? > > > > Nothing in the proposed policy document prevents this. > > Sorry, I misunderstood you then. I thought you were proposing to assign a /8 > to the RIR directly from start on. I actually like the idea of making the > assignments for the current RIRs far apart from each other allowing their > block to grow or to assign the space in between to other organizations > should it move in this direction. OK, so we are actually agreeing here :-) - I like the proposal as it is (with a /12 for a start). The /8 came up because that would be something I'd like *more* - but I am aware that there is no consensus for that, so the whole discussion is sort of moot. [..] > So if the ripe can show a need for a /12 in the next 3 years give them one. > If they can not, make it a /16 or a /20 or whatever the ripe will need. Same > goes for the other RIRs. Having *plenty* of space at the RIR level is useful, because it means "the RIR can leave lots of spare space between LIR allocations", so LIRs can grow without needing to get a new address block. There is no benefit in reducing a RIR to a /16 or /20 - there are really enough /12s out there (even if you assume 150 NIRs plus a PIR). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65398 (60210) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From rogerj at jorgensen.no Wed Aug 11 16:38:24 2004 From: rogerj at jorgensen.no (Roger Jorgensen) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:38:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <20040811102902.A18246@homebase.cluenet.de> References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <200408092246.24273.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <16665.23720.926036.641285@roam.psg.com> <200408110904.21749.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <20040811102902.A18246@homebase.cluenet.de> Message-ID: The issue isn't about allocating a bigger netblock to the RIRs or not, the issue are more how big it should be. Anything bigger than /8 is shooting ourself in the foot and limiting our options when we in 10-20years figure out a much better way to use the address space. Even /12 is overkill but it will last for a while and we don't get more fragmentation of the IPv6 space than we have today with those ridiculous /23 allocation. Allocate maximum one /8 for each RIR and give them a /12 _now_, not in 1 years time! Just stop those /23 allocation... I'm still quite Junior and young compared to most of you, and I have no interest in getting into trouble with IPv6 in some years (20+) similar to what there are today with IPv4 due to we thought we could waste _too_ much of the address space:) ...Not to mention the trouble we for sure will have with regards to how to solve one of the unsolved "problems", multihoming.... just my 2 Euro cents:) (that we in 20+ years will face a situation where IPv6 most likely aren't usable, that's a total different story) On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 09:04:21AM +0100, Jon Lawrence wrote: > > Yes, doubling does seem unwise. > > It would make sense (to me anyway) that once xx% of a /12 is allocated then > > another /12 is issued to the RIR. > > Indeed. I see no point in unconditional doubling. I'm pretty confident > that /12 blocks are large enough to serve a RIR long enough so that > ordering a new /12 is not hampering anything. > > My suggestion would be to set aside a /8 per RIR (perhaps also a DNS > reverse delegation for that) and allocate /12s to the RIRs upon their > request. A RIR qualifies for a new /12 block as soon as nn% usage of > the current /12 block is reached. nn might be 50% or more. As Randy > suggests, the percentage should be low enough so that the RIRs can > get new space without delaying allocation to LIRs (as it happens > nowadays). > > > Best regards, > Daniel > > -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | rogerj at stud.cs.uit.no | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no ------------------------------------------------------- From ripe-lst at eirconnect.net Fri Aug 13 19:17:47 2004 From: ripe-lst at eirconnect.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:17:47 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: References: <1A38A7AC-EA1A-11D8-9320-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> <20040811102902.A18246@homebase.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <200408131817.47691.ripe-lst@eirconnect.net> On Wed 11 Aug 2004 15:38, Roger Jorgensen wrote: > no interest in getting into trouble with IPv6 in some years (20+) > similar to what there are today with IPv4 due to we thought we could > waste _too_ much of the address space:) The trouble with v4 today is not scarcity. This is largely due to the policy, in recent years, of conservation over aggregation but that has resulted in it's own problems, like large routing tables, un-aggregateable prefixes, etc. I somehow find it hard to envision a situation where IPv6 conservation may become an issue, be it in 20 years or 50 - fragmented address space is IMO the far more pressing issue... > ...Not to mention the trouble we for sure will have with regards to > how to solve one of the unsolved "problems", multihoming.... Not getting in on this one... Regards, Sascha Luck -- DoO Eirconnect From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Tue Aug 17 11:22:40 2004 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:22:40 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs Message-ID: <00A367D4.F8B253A8.15@cc.univie.ac.at> >> So what are your proposals to improve the system, then? > >what's broken? the rirs watch the lirs. iana watches the rirs. >icann watches the iana. Looking at the situation from my end of the stick, this statement is a bit simplistic or at least incomplete. First of all, on one end there is a cummunity of customers which does watch the RIRs, too. And on the other end: who/what watches the IANA and ICANN? This is where I do see more single points of failure, and "procedures", "double-checks" and "delays" than I see the risks with the RIRs. This is not to be taken as a support statement for giving away everything at once (whatever it is :-) - but a geographically and culturally distributed system is in my opinion much more robust than a nationally or hierarchicvally controlled setup - and being constrained by just *one* particular jurisdiction. Wilfried. From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Tue Aug 17 16:32:41 2004 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:32:41 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs In-Reply-To: <00A367D4.F8B253A8.15@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: > And on the other end: who/what watches the IANA and ICANN? This is > where I do see more single points of failure, and "procedures", > "double-checks" and "delays" than I see the risks with the RIRs. Well, clearly ICANN and the U.S. watch the IANA because the IANA an activity which the DOC subcontracts to ICANN to perform. The IANA is not an organization and it has no independent status. It just happens to be the historical name for some of the functions of ICANN so for convenience and clarity, the name remains assigned to that set of functions. For clarification read this contract that ICANN has signed with the DOC on behalf of the U.S. Government. That brings us back to ICANN. The ICANN of today is not the ICANN that was originally created several years ago. A large part of the changes in the structure and activity of ICANN have to do with who watches ICANN. Read the bylaws and note that there is provision for watchers who watch certain things related to their expertise. Note the regular series of meetings around the world so that external watchers have access to ICANN in order to comment and raise issues. Note the existence of organizations like the IETF and the NRO outside the umbrella of ICANN but watching it and poking it where needed. As long as this unwieldy assemblage of organizations and non-organizations continues to exist in more or less the present form, I don't see any issues with watching ICANN. If any weak points develop, someone/something will evolve to fill them or fix them or whatever. I know that highly educated technical people often cringe to see such an organizational architecture, but there is ample precedent in the world to show that this is a valid way to build an adaptable long-lived organization. For a similar example you might want to do some research into the governance structures of the organization popularly known as Oxford University. The European Union is another similarly complex beast when you look at it in its entirety, i.e. including the national/federal governments, regional governments and municipal governments. --Michael Dillon From leo at ripe.net Wed Aug 18 10:53:47 2004 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:53:47 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC Message-ID: <1E5D4C7A-F0F4-11D8-BAEA-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2001:4600::/23 from the IANA in August 2004. You may want to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our web site at: Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Fri Aug 20 13:49:40 2004 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:49:40 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation Message-ID: <00A36A45.014A4C38.6@cc.univie.ac.at> I've got one comment here on section 7. paragraph 4. "Subsequent Allocation": While the wording might be sufficiently clear for a native speaker by referring to "set of administrative procedures....", I am missing clear guidance for the IANA that there should _not_ be any incentive or responsibilty to consult with other groups, entities or third parties (irrespective of their, say, credibility for e.g. protocol development or technical specifications) which would require extending that 30 day period. My proposal would be that IANA would have to perform the subsequent allocation within this 30 day period, even if they might not be able to obtain advice or an expertise (for whatever reason) from any other party they might have decided to ask for advice. Wilfried ( https://cert.aco.net/ ) _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...there's no place like 127.0.0.1 (or ::1/128 ?) From: David Kessens To: Jeroen Massar Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:48:52 -0700 CC: ipv6-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] FW: [arin-council] IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation Jeroen, On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:25:59AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > For people not on the arin-council (not likely ;) or the ppml at arin > lists: All policy discussions for the RIPE region are now conducted at the RIPE policy working group maillist: address-policy-wg at ripe.net David Kessens --- > -----Forwarded Message----- > From: "Sweeting, John" > To: 'ppml at arin.net' > Subject: [ppml] FW: [arin-council] IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation > Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:36:56 -0400 > > I am submitting the following proposal IAW ARIN's Internet Resource Policy > Evaluation Process. In the interest of all I would like to disclose up front > that the information used to prepare this template was provided by ARIN > staff. > > > ############################################ > Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-1.0 > > 1. Policy Proposal Name: Allocation of IPv6 Address Space by the Internet > Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy to Regional Internet Registries > > 2. Author > > a. name: John Sweeting > b. email: john.sweeting at teleglobe.com > c. telephone: 703-766-3042 > d. organization: ARIN Advisory Council > > 3. Proposal Version: 1 > > 4. Submission Date: 8/17/04 > > 5. Proposal type: new, global > > 6. Policy term: permanent > > 7. Policy statement: > > 1. Minimum Allocation Size. > > The minimum size of any allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to an RIR > is prefix length /12. If this address space is not sufficient to meet the > needs of an RIR for a projected 18 month period, IANA shall allocate to that > RIR the address space for which it can provide justification. > > 2. Reservation of Unicast Address space. > > 2.1 IANA. By RFC 3513 the IANA has been allocated the range of IPv6 > addresses beginning at binary value 001 (prefix length /3) for its > allocations of unicast address space. In order to support regional > aggregation of IPv6 address space IANA shall establish a reservation of a > prefix length of /6 from this space for each established RIR and for each > emerging RIR. Allocations to each RIR will be from the appropriate > reservation. > > 2.2. RIRs. Each RIR may apply its own respective chosen allocation and > reservation strategy in order to meet the needs of its community and to > ensure the efficiency and efficacy of its work. Such reservations made by > an RIR will be considered as being allocated by that RIR when that RIR > applies for an allocation of address space from the IANA. > > 3. Initial Allocation. > > 3.1. Upon implementation of this policy IANA shall allocate to each > established RIR a /12 from the reservation established for each particular > RIR. > > 3.2. Upon recognition of an RIR by ICANN that RIR shall receive a /12 from > the reservation set aside for that RIR. > > > 4. Subsequent Allocation. > > An RIR shall be eligible for an allocation of at least a minimal allocation > from the IANA when its current holdings are less than 50% of its 18 month > requirement or when it has less than 180 days of holdings available. The > IANA shall evaluate the requested allocation using a set of administrative > procedures that are mutually agreed to by the IANA and the NRO. This set of > procedures shall be enacted within 30 days of the implentation of this > policy. > > > 5. Announcement of IANA allocations to the RIRs > > When address space is allocated to a RIR, the IANA will send a detailed > announcement to the receiving RIR. The IANA will also make announcements to > all other RIRs, informing them of the recent allocation. > > The IANA will make appropriate modifications to the "Internet Protocol V6 > Address Space" page of the IANA website and may make announcements to only > its own global announcement lists. The IANA announcements will be limited > to which address ranges, the time of allocation and to which Registry they > have been allocated. > > > 8. Rationale: > > The current IANA allocation policy for IPv6 is an interim policy that was > promulgated in 1999. Operational experience has demonstrated the current > minimum allocation size is too small; that the built in reservation system > that must be followed by the RIRs does not allow for efficient and effective > management of the resource by the RIR; and does not provide for an well > known evaluation criteria. This document does not stipulate performance > requirements in the provision of services by IANA to an RIR in accordance > with the policy. Such requirements should be specified by appropriate > agreements between the NRO and ICANN. > > > 9. Timetable for implementation: Thirty days after ratification by the ICANN > Board of Directors in accordance with the global policy development process _______________________________________________ From plzak at arin.net Fri Aug 20 14:01:27 2004 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:01:27 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation In-Reply-To: <00A36A45.014A4C38.6@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20040820120128.25489CF39E@mercury.arin.net> Wilfried, I've forwarded your comment to the ARIN ppml. Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 7:50 AM > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Cc: ipv6-wg at ripe.net; woeber at cc.univie.ac.at > Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation > > I've got one comment here on > section 7. paragraph 4. "Subsequent Allocation": > > While the wording might be sufficiently clear for a native speaker by > referring to "set of administrative procedures....", I am missing clear > guidance for the IANA that there should _not_ be any incentive or > responsibilty to consult with other groups, entities or third parties > (irrespective of their, say, credibility for e.g. protocol development > or technical specifications) which would require extending that 30 day > period. > > My proposal would be that IANA would have to perform the subsequent > allocation within this 30 day period, even if they might not be able to > obtain advice or an expertise (for whatever reason) from any other party > they might have decided to ask for advice. > > Wilfried ( https://cert.aco.net/ ) > _________________________________:_____________________________________ > Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at > UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 > Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 > A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ...there's no place like 127.0.0.1 (or ::1/128 ?) > > > From: David Kessens > To: Jeroen Massar > Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:48:52 -0700 > CC: ipv6-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] FW: [arin-council] IANA to RIR IPv6 > Allocation > > > Jeroen, > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:25:59AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > For people not on the arin-council (not likely ;) or the ppml at arin > > lists: > > All policy discussions for the RIPE region are now conducted at the RIPE > policy working group maillist: > > address-policy-wg at ripe.net > > David Kessens > --- > > > -----Forwarded Message----- > > From: "Sweeting, John" > > To: 'ppml at arin.net' > > Subject: [ppml] FW: [arin-council] IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation > > Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:36:56 -0400 > > > > I am submitting the following proposal IAW ARIN's Internet Resource > Policy > > Evaluation Process. In the interest of all I would like to disclose up > front > > that the information used to prepare this template was provided by ARIN > > staff. > > > > > > ############################################ > > Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-1.0 > > > > 1. Policy Proposal Name: Allocation of IPv6 Address Space by the > Internet > > Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy to Regional Internet Registries > > > > 2. Author > > > > a. name: John Sweeting > > b. email: john.sweeting at teleglobe.com > > c. telephone: 703-766-3042 > > d. organization: ARIN Advisory Council > > > > 3. Proposal Version: 1 > > > > 4. Submission Date: 8/17/04 > > > > 5. Proposal type: new, global > > > > 6. Policy term: permanent > > > > 7. Policy statement: > > > > 1. Minimum Allocation Size. > > > > The minimum size of any allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to an > RIR > > is prefix length /12. If this address space is not sufficient to meet > the > > needs of an RIR for a projected 18 month period, IANA shall allocate to > that > > RIR the address space for which it can provide justification. > > > > 2. Reservation of Unicast Address space. > > > > 2.1 IANA. By RFC 3513 the IANA has been allocated the range of IPv6 > > addresses beginning at binary value 001 (prefix length /3) for its > > allocations of unicast address space. In order to support regional > > aggregation of IPv6 address space IANA shall establish a reservation of > a > > prefix length of /6 from this space for each established RIR and for > each > > emerging RIR. Allocations to each RIR will be from the appropriate > > reservation. > > > > 2.2. RIRs. Each RIR may apply its own respective chosen allocation and > > reservation strategy in order to meet the needs of its community and to > > ensure the efficiency and efficacy of its work. Such reservations made > by > > an RIR will be considered as being allocated by that RIR when that RIR > > applies for an allocation of address space from the IANA. > > > > 3. Initial Allocation. > > > > 3.1. Upon implementation of this policy IANA shall allocate to each > > established RIR a /12 from the reservation established for each > particular > > RIR. > > > > 3.2. Upon recognition of an RIR by ICANN that RIR shall receive a /12 > from > > the reservation set aside for that RIR. > > > > > > 4. Subsequent Allocation. > > > > An RIR shall be eligible for an allocation of at least a minimal > allocation > > from the IANA when its current holdings are less than 50% of its 18 > month > > requirement or when it has less than 180 days of holdings available. > The > > IANA shall evaluate the requested allocation using a set of > administrative > > procedures that are mutually agreed to by the IANA and the NRO. This > set of > > procedures shall be enacted within 30 days of the implentation of this > > policy. > > > > > > 5. Announcement of IANA allocations to the RIRs > > > > When address space is allocated to a RIR, the IANA will send a detailed > > announcement to the receiving RIR. The IANA will also make announcements > to > > all other RIRs, informing them of the recent allocation. > > > > The IANA will make appropriate modifications to the "Internet Protocol > V6 > > Address Space" page of the IANA website and may make announcements to > only > > its own global announcement lists. The IANA announcements will be > limited > > to which address ranges, the time of allocation and to which Registry > they > > have been allocated. > > > > > > 8. Rationale: > > > > The current IANA allocation policy for IPv6 is an interim policy that > was > > promulgated in 1999. Operational experience has demonstrated the > current > > minimum allocation size is too small; that the built in reservation > system > > that must be followed by the RIRs does not allow for efficient and > effective > > management of the resource by the RIR; and does not provide for an well > > known evaluation criteria. This document does not stipulate performance > > requirements in the provision of services by IANA to an RIR in > accordance > > with the policy. Such requirements should be specified by appropriate > > agreements between the NRO and ICANN. > > > > > > 9. Timetable for implementation: Thirty days after ratification by the > ICANN > > Board of Directors in accordance with the global policy development > process > > _______________________________________________ From gert at space.net Fri Aug 20 14:02:13 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:02:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation In-Reply-To: <00A36A45.014A4C38.6@cc.univie.ac.at> References: <00A36A45.014A4C38.6@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20040820120213.GM467@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:49:40PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > My proposal would be that IANA would have to perform the subsequent > allocation within this 30 day period, even if they might not be able to > obtain advice or an expertise (for whatever reason) from any other party > they might have decided to ask for advice. Seconded. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65398 (60210) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Fri Aug 20 14:43:24 2004 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:43:24 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs Message-ID: <00A36A4C.82897088.15@cc.univie.ac.at> >Well, clearly ICANN and the U.S. watch the IANA because the IANA >an activity which the DOC subcontracts to ICANN to perform. Exactly. > The IANA is not an organization and it has no independent status. It >just happens to be the historical name for some of the functions of ICANN Exactly. >so for convenience and clarity, the name remains assigned to that set of >functions. For clarification read this contract that ICANN has signed with >the DOC on behalf of the U.S. Government. Indeed. And given the world, some governments, and ICANN as they are these days, I (personally) do not consider that structure to be the most stable and resilient setup that I'd rather have in place to control global resource distribution. Wilfried. From plzak at arin.net Fri Aug 20 19:57:39 2004 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:57:39 -0400 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040820175740.9E161CF39E@mercury.arin.net> Iljitsch, While your comments do not address the policy proposed on the ARIN list there are some elements in your comments that may be relevant to the discussion on the ppml. I will soon forward it. In regard to your comments I have an observation with regard to the amount of IPv4 address space that has been allocated to the RIRs. It is worth noting that the RIRs have not been allocated "around 220" /8s. In fact, the vast majority of IPv4 address allocations pre-date the formation of the RIRs. These allocations were either made by the Central Registry (94 /8s) or the IETF (32 /8s*. This is the old classful D and E space. Some may choose to consider the old classful E space as an IANA reserve). The RIRs have had 50 /8 blocks allocated to them by the IANA. This is just under 20% of the total IPv4 address space. Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch at muada.com] > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 8:38 AM > To: Ray Plzak > Cc: ; > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR > IPv6 Allocation > > On 20-aug-04, at 14:01, Ray Plzak wrote: > > > Wilfried, > > > I've forwarded your comment to the ARIN ppml. > > Ray, as long as you're forwarding, maybe you'll find my comment to the > RIPE list from a week and a half ago of interest: > > > > The Number Resource Organisation (NRO) has published a proposal for a > > policy for the allocation of IPv6 address space from the IANA to the > > RIRs. It is intended that this proposed policy should be agreed by all > > RIRs' open policy fora and then approved by the ASO and ICANN as a > > global policy. > > Reserving a /6 for each RIR seems like the other extreme to me. In IPv4 > we have around 220 /8s that have been given out to RIRs pretty much one > at a time in the past. In IPv6 we effectively have 8 /6s. This means > that as a percentage of total available space, the RIRs get more than > 25 times more IPv6 space than they've been given IPv4 space in the > past, even though a v4 /8 will accommodate at most 16.8M end-user > assignments (less in practice) while a v6 /6 allows for AT LEAST 4.4T > (yes, that's 10^12) end-user assignments. > > Now I can see SOME value in trying to have relatively large RIR blocks, > but cutting up all non-reserved space so aggressively really doesn't > have any upsides, and we never know whether we're going to need any > really large blocks in the future. Also, doubling every time is ok for > a while, but it pretty much guarantees that you're going to have way > too much space on your hands at some point. > > A more reasonable policy would be: > > - reserve a /12 for each RIR now (a 4 bit boundary makes DNS > delegations easier, I think a /8 is too much but that might work also) > - then, for every delegation, give RIRs enough space to each to last a > year comfortably > - evaluate whether a new delegation is needed every 3 or 4 months, > making the time of new delegations easy to predict From randy at psg.com Sat Aug 21 06:04:20 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:04:20 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation References: <00A36A45.014A4C38.6@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <16678.51652.603144.754837@ran.psg.com> > My proposal would be that IANA would have to perform the subsequent > allocation within this 30 day period, even if they might not be able to > obtain advice or an expertise (for whatever reason) from any other party > they might have decided to ask for advice. sure, if we can we do the same for rir to lir From iljitsch at muada.com Fri Aug 20 14:38:22 2004 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:38:22 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation In-Reply-To: <20040820120128.25489CF39E@mercury.arin.net> References: <20040820120128.25489CF39E@mercury.arin.net> Message-ID: On 20-aug-04, at 14:01, Ray Plzak wrote: > Wilfried, > I've forwarded your comment to the ARIN ppml. Ray, as long as you're forwarding, maybe you'll find my comment to the RIPE list from a week and a half ago of interest: > The Number Resource Organisation (NRO) has published a proposal for a > policy for the allocation of IPv6 address space from the IANA to the > RIRs. It is intended that this proposed policy should be agreed by all > RIRs' open policy fora and then approved by the ASO and ICANN as a > global policy. Reserving a /6 for each RIR seems like the other extreme to me. In IPv4 we have around 220 /8s that have been given out to RIRs pretty much one at a time in the past. In IPv6 we effectively have 8 /6s. This means that as a percentage of total available space, the RIRs get more than 25 times more IPv6 space than they've been given IPv4 space in the past, even though a v4 /8 will accommodate at most 16.8M end-user assignments (less in practice) while a v6 /6 allows for AT LEAST 4.4T (yes, that's 10^12) end-user assignments. Now I can see SOME value in trying to have relatively large RIR blocks, but cutting up all non-reserved space so aggressively really doesn't have any upsides, and we never know whether we're going to need any really large blocks in the future. Also, doubling every time is ok for a while, but it pretty much guarantees that you're going to have way too much space on your hands at some point. A more reasonable policy would be: - reserve a /12 for each RIR now (a 4 bit boundary makes DNS delegations easier, I think a /8 is too much but that might work also) - then, for every delegation, give RIRs enough space to each to last a year comfortably - evaluate whether a new delegation is needed every 3 or 4 months, making the time of new delegations easy to predict From iljitsch at muada.com Fri Aug 20 23:15:52 2004 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:15:52 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation In-Reply-To: <20040820175740.9E161CF39E@mercury.arin.net> References: <20040820175740.9E161CF39E@mercury.arin.net> Message-ID: <1DF8EA1E-F2EE-11D8-A5BE-000A95CD987A@muada.com> On 20-aug-04, at 19:57, Ray Plzak wrote: > While your comments do not address the policy proposed on the ARIN list Hm, I thought this was an IANA thing so it must be the same world wide? > In regard to your comments > I have an observation with regard to the amount of IPv4 address space > that > has been allocated to the RIRs. It is worth noting that the RIRs have > not > been allocated "around 220" /8s. Upon rereading it turns out the words didn't come out as I intended. What I meant to say was that there are some 220 /8s in total that may serve as global IPv4 unicast address space, and in the past the RIRs would get one /8 at a time, or about 0.45% of the available address space at a time. The proposed IPv6 policy wants to allocate /6s to the RIRs, which is 12.5% of the currently available global IPv6 unicast space. Now if 0.45% was workable for 10 years in IPv4, I don't see why 12.5% would be necessary in IPv6. Obviously there is some hidden goal that will be met by this policy. I think that before this policy is adopted this goal should be made explicit and there should be consensus that this is indeed an important goal. From iljitsch at muada.com Tue Aug 24 09:47:09 2004 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:47:09 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR ipv6 Allocation In-Reply-To: <412AAC7E.71BA62F6@ix.netcom.com> References: <20040820120128.25489CF39E@mercury.arin.net> <412AAC7E.71BA62F6@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On 24-aug-04, at 4:48, Jeff Williams wrote: > Iljitsch and all, ^^^^^ No kidding... > None of this addresses the outstanding problems with Ipv6 or ipv6 > allocation concerns and existing as well as discussed problems. > They are "at least" the following: I don't think I get what you're talking about. > 1. ) Invalid or incorrect minimal allocation. What is invalid or incorrect here? > 2.) Still existing cost increases for allocations. What cost? > 3.) Still existing security/privacy "holes" in ipv6 What holes? There is no difference with IPv4. > 4.) Routing notification for new allocation practice or method. What on Earth is a "routing notification"? > 5.) Routing table maintenance Best practices and/or policy, Well, there is some of this but since the RIRs seem to have trouble living up to their own policies this is problematic. (See http://www.bgpexpert.com/archive2003q4.php ) > and enforcement of same. Yes, we don't do this in the internet. (And go fix the IPv4 table first if you feel so inclined.) > 6.) Dealing with "Dark" existing and/or future allocated addresses. Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Now if we could have a mechanism to determine resolving DNS servers automatically in IPv6 and have visible IPv6 addresses for the root DNS servers we'd be well on our way. And of course we still need multihoming in IPv4 and the IETF has to quit rewriting the RFCs all the time. > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: I know what I wrote, so P L E A S E don't repeat it in its entirety!!! I'm really getting sick and tired of people who are too lazy to quote in a decent manner. From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Wed Aug 25 16:50:10 2004 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:50:10 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: IANA to RIR IPv6 Allocation Message-ID: <00A36E4C.0C67B938.11@cc.univie.ac.at> >> My proposal would be that IANA would have to perform the subsequent >> allocation within this 30 day period, even if they might not be able to >> obtain advice or an expertise (for whatever reason) from any other party >> they might have decided to ask for advice. > >sure, if we can we do the same for rir to lir No problem with that, although I don't see the need for global coordination here. To me this sounds like a RIR-Customer service-contract aspect. Wilfried.