From narten at us.ibm.com Thu Jul 1 16:32:51 2004 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 10:32:51 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "c)" In-Reply-To: Message from kurtis@kurtis.pp.se of "Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:10:20 +0200." <8DBF53A8-BF29-11D8-8CB7-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <200407011432.i61EWpqk017112@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> > > Below is an excerpt from the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment > > Policy: > > > > 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria "c)" > > > > "To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an > > organisation must [...] plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to > > organisations to which it will assign /48s by advertising that > > connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation" > > > > > > LIRs who operate closed/private networks appear not to qualify because > > the address space in these networks will not be advertised. Was this > > the > > community's intention? The intention was that any (globally routable) address space be allocated in a way that aggregates well. We need to limit the size of the DFZ routing tables. That means: - no random prefixes to end sites - end sites get addresses from LIRs, so the LIR can aggregate _all_ the routes to the end sites it covers via a single prefix At the time the policy was developed, we explicitely did not include discussion of "closed/private" networks. So basically, that topic isn't really covered in the current policy. Speaking personally, I don't see a problem with making allocations for closed networks, _if_ there is the possibility/intention that at some _future_ time the address will be publically advertised. I.e., for the short term the address space will be closed, but the long-term intention is otherwise. But see below as well. > More or less yes. If they do not plan to advertise this space, they > should go for the > "unique-site-local-replacement-addresses-that-you-are-not-allowed-to- > route-globally-ever" (or whatever they will be called). For sites that will never be publically routed, this is a reasonable way to go. (draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-05.txt is the current version.) Note that the "site local replacement" addresses are essentially owned by the end site, so there is no need to ever return those addresses. For addresses allocated from an LIR, the address space is effectively bound to the LIR, and is not "portable". Thus, if at some later date the end site wants global visibility, the visibility will be through the LIR, not some other ISP. End sites need to understand the implications of both approaches prior to selecting a type of address appropriate for them. Thomas From narten at us.ibm.com Thu Jul 1 17:49:27 2004 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 11:49:27 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" In-Reply-To: Message from jon@lawrence.org.uk of "Fri, 25 Jun 2004 22:53:00 BST." <200406252253.00965.jon@lawrence.org.uk> Message-ID: <200407011549.i61FnRaQ017286@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Jon Lawrence writes: > On Friday 25 June 2004 22:12, David Kessens wrote: > > The policy is very clear: 'you need a plan to have 200 customers'. > That's the whole point. The policy says *plan* to make 200 /48 assignments to > other organisations within two years. > What's the point in that ? anyone can *plan* to make 200 > assignments. It seems that folk have lost site of the motivation for this rule. What we were trying to achieve (and believe we still MUST strive to achive) is a balance between making it straightforward for a serious ISP to get an IPv6 block, but also prevent what is essentially an end site from getting an allocation direct from an RIR. The latter is not scalable long-term and must be prevented in general. The general goal is that any ISP that is seriously looking at deploying IPv6 and/or offering it to their customers should be able to get an allocation. But how do you "measure" the seriousness of this in straightforward, unambiguous ways? And how do you prevent what is essentially an end site from being able to get an allocation because (say) they happen to be a member of RIPE, ARIN, etc.? E.g., if all it takes to get an allocation is be a member, I suspect that some end sites will join _just_ to get an IPv6 address. It is these sorts of things that make it difficult to say "just give a block to anyone that asks," or otherwise remove all barriers to getting an allocation. The intention behind the wording: > d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other > organizations within two years. includes some key things. "other organizations" was intended to ensure that we don't get end sites saying "hey, I've got a global (internal) network, with 200 branch offices (each with a /48). I should qualify for an allocation". And "200" was chosen (somewhat arbitrarily) again to make it clear this wasn't just for a handful of end sites. In order to get good aggregation long term, we need to have ISPs aggregating _many_ end sites, i.e., in the thousands and more. This won't happen anytime soon, but once IPv6 becomes widely deployed, this is the sort aggregation we need. Thus, 200 was picked as a number large enough to indicate that over the long term aggregation of a significant number of end sites is needed. Finally, the 2 years figure was also somewhat arbitrary. I view the goal here as being something like: when IPv6 starts to get seriously deployed, and many end sites are being assigned /48s, at that point it would be appropriate to put some teeth into the "200 customers" figure. But since we aren't there, and don't really have any idea how long it will be before that kind of deployment takes place, we can't really put in a fixed number (and really believe it). Hence, the words "plan" and "two years". The idea here is that this indicates a serious committment to actually getting IPv6 enabled internally and made available to customers. But of course, if there is no customer demand, then the dates need to be pushed out per above. I believe all the RIRs have stated that they have no intention to go after LIRs after 2 years if they haven't actually gotten 200 customers. I suspect that they would start going after LIRs only after discussion within the community indicated that the state of deployment had advanced enough that it was now appropriate to go after deadbeats - LIRs that have allocations, but never really lived up to their obligations to really offer IPv6 service to its customers. > It seems to be a rule for the sake of having a rule - I'm sure there > must have been good reasons for bringing it in, perhaps I just don't > get it. e.g. An LIR gets an allocation by showing a plan to assign > 200 /48's. But after 2 years they've only assigned 50. They would > have obeyed the policy even though they failed to achieve the 200 > assignments. This says to me that the 200 assignment rule is > completely pointless. Hopefully that explains the motivation behind the current wording. I agree that the current wording has been controversial and could be better. But what I would like to see is that any proposal for change keep the original goals in mind, rather than just say "stupid requirment, get rid of it completely - and don't replace it with anything else". We need to ensure for the long-term that the right balance is maintained between ease of allocation and prudent management of a (limited) public resource. And to be clear, I say "limited" no in the sense of numbers of addresses, but in the number of prefixes that can be effectively managed in the DFZ. Folks don't want just addresses, they also want connectivity to all other end sites. Thomas From david.kessens at nokia.com Fri Jul 2 03:30:22 2004 From: david.kessens at nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 18:30:22 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" In-Reply-To: <32a301c45b05$715e5c30$640a0a0a@consulintel.es> References: <20040624195205.GD67702@Space.Net> <20040625075718.GH67702@Space.Net> <20040625211214.GK30006@nokia.com> <200406252253.00965.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <20040625222736.GA15693@nokia.com> <32a301c45b05$715e5c30$640a0a0a@consulintel.es> Message-ID: <20040702013021.GC17400@nokia.com> Jordi, On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:40:39AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > I'm very interested to heard about what "interesting problems" do > you think the lack of a global policy will create. > > May be having those problems openly discussed could provide the > required propeller in order to ensure a global coordination again. IP (both versions) address space is a global resource. It would be unfair for people operating in different regions if they would get addresses based on different rulesets, or worse are unable to get addresses in one region while they would be eligible in another. In addition, multinational companies are able to do address shopping in different regions (where it is easiest/cheapest), while local companies have to deal with the local monopoly that has more difficult rules than another region or has temporary service issues. [On a side note: The boundaries of the regions are completely artificial and irrelevant in a network that knows no borders. Why is it that we have to get our resources from areas on the globe that are rather expensive in an age when many companies are starting to move service industry jobs to places where it is more cost effective ?] In addition, a climate has been created where we are doing 'competive liberalization' of our rules, if one region changes the rules, others feel they have to follow, even though very often no research has been done on what actually the need for the policy change was, the consequences for the global routing table and whether other alternative solutions were possible that are cheaper in execution or more fair. And this is only a subset of all the issues, use your imagination and you will come up with your own set. David Kessens --- From nils at steering-group.net Fri Jul 2 02:03:55 2004 From: nils at steering-group.net (Nils Ketelsen) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 20:03:55 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" In-Reply-To: <200407011549.i61FnRaQ017286@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <200406252253.00965.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <200407011549.i61FnRaQ017286@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20040702000355.GA3923@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:49:27AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: > Jon Lawrence writes: > It seems that folk have lost site of the motivation for this > rule. What we were trying to achieve (and believe we still MUST strive > to achive) is a balance between making it straightforward for a > serious ISP to get an IPv6 block, but also prevent what is essentially > an end site from getting an allocation direct from an RIR. The latter > is not scalable long-term and must be prevented in general. I know a lot of endsites, that (essentially) have (a) a lot more need for address space than many ISPs and (b) the realistic chance to deploy IPv6 in a large network, because they can actually force the use of IPv6 in their network. I think this fight for "Allocations of Address space only to ISPs" is one of the best reasons not to do IPv6. Actually the only reason for this rule that I can think of is, that it is made by ISPs who as it seems either believe they have the biggest networks or believe they could tie up customers with that. I think both assumptions are plain wrong. Currently it means no big organisation I can think of is willing to do IPv6. Now they are free to move from provider to provider, then they are not. Businesswise it would be stupid to give up this freedom. > The general goal is that any ISP that is seriously looking at > deploying IPv6 and/or offering it to their customers should be able to > get an allocation. But how do you "measure" the seriousness of this in So an ISP with 200 Customers (each havong one server in his datacenter) gets IP-Space allocated, a multinational company having a few thousand servers and a few hundredthousand workstations all connected through their own network, doesn't. Okay, these are extremes, but extremes show it the best: This does not make sense. Maybe the rule should not say "planning to connect 200 organizations" but rather "will connect x devices within the next 2 years". X has to be negotiated. Or, instead of devices, networks. But these are much more useful numbers. As well for some ISPs (which only 5-20 customers, but these are big) as for other organizations, which in the end connect more end-users then most ISPs. > "other organizations" was intended to ensure that we don't get end > sites saying "hey, I've got a global (internal) network, with 200 > branch offices (each with a /48). I should qualify for an allocation". I think these should qulify as much as an ISP connecting 200 Dialup-users. Nils -- *SAMMELT OBSTKERNE!* From marcelo at it.uc3m.es Fri Jul 2 11:49:07 2004 From: marcelo at it.uc3m.es (marcelo bagnulo braun) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:49:07 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" In-Reply-To: <20040702000355.GA3923@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> References: <200406252253.00965.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <200407011549.i61FnRaQ017286@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> <20040702000355.GA3923@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> Message-ID: <0FBF9198-CC0D-11D8-A131-000D93ACD0FE@it.uc3m.es> Hi Nils, El 02/07/2004, a las 2:03, Nils Ketelsen escribi?: > On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:49:27AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: > >> Jon Lawrence writes: >> It seems that folk have lost site of the motivation for this >> rule. What we were trying to achieve (and believe we still MUST strive >> to achive) is a balance between making it straightforward for a >> serious ISP to get an IPv6 block, but also prevent what is essentially >> an end site from getting an allocation direct from an RIR. The latter >> is not scalable long-term and must be prevented in general. > > I know a lot of endsites, that (essentially) have (a) a lot more need > for > address space than many ISPs and (b) the realistic chance to deploy > IPv6 in > a large network, because they can actually force the use of IPv6 in > their > network. > imho the difficulty here is how do you define a "large" network, i mean when a network is large enough to obtain its own allocation. to which i guess one option is what you mention below.... [...] > > Maybe the rule should not say "planning to connect 200 organizations" > but > rather "will connect x devices within the next 2 years". X has to be > negotiated. Or, instead of devices, networks. But these are much more > useful > numbers. As well for some ISPs (which only 5-20 customers, but these > are > big) as for other organizations, which in the end connect more > end-users > then most ISPs. > how much is x? regards, marcelo > >> "other organizations" was intended to ensure that we don't get end >> sites saying "hey, I've got a global (internal) network, with 200 >> branch offices (each with a /48). I should qualify for an allocation". > > I think these should qulify as much as an ISP connecting 200 > Dialup-users. > > Nils > -- > *SAMMELT OBSTKERNE!* > From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Fri Jul 2 12:03:40 2004 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:03:40 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" References: <20040624195205.GD67702@Space.Net> <20040625075718.GH67702@Space.Net> <20040625211214.GK30006@nokia.com> <200406252253.00965.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <20040625222736.GA15693@nokia.com> <32a301c45b05$715e5c30$640a0a0a@consulintel.es> <20040702013021.GC17400@nokia.com> Message-ID: <068201c4601b$da5bf6a0$d60b12ac@consulintel.es> Hi David, Fully agree with your comments. Why we don't try to open the eyes on those points in the different RIRs policy WGs ? Actually I'm even starting to doubt about the effectiveness of having different RIRs. It will not be simple to have a single entity, with different local offices, with localized training plans, etc., but single global policy ? I know this is "politically" difficult and even can be perceived as incorrect by some members but ... seems to me much more practical. One suggestion I made several times is that instead of having 3 regional meetings per year, we should have less regional meetings and 1 Global RIRs (all the members) meeting. This meeting can move each year to a different region and I'm sure will be very good to actually help to build a global policy. Regards, Jordi ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kessens" To: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" Cc: Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 3:30 AM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" > > Jordi, > > On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:40:39AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > > > I'm very interested to heard about what "interesting problems" do > > you think the lack of a global policy will create. > > > > May be having those problems openly discussed could provide the > > required propeller in order to ensure a global coordination again. > > IP (both versions) address space is a global resource. It would be > unfair for people operating in different regions if they would get > addresses based on different rulesets, or worse are unable to get > addresses in one region while they would be eligible in another. In > addition, multinational companies are able to do address shopping in > different regions (where it is easiest/cheapest), while local > companies have to deal with the local monopoly that has more difficult > rules than another region or has temporary service issues. > > [On a side note: The boundaries of the regions are completely > artificial and irrelevant in a network that knows no borders. Why is > it that we have to get our resources from areas on the globe that are > rather expensive in an age when many companies are starting to move > service industry jobs to places where it is more cost effective ?] > > In addition, a climate has been created where we are doing 'competive > liberalization' of our rules, if one region changes the rules, others > feel they have to follow, even though very often no research has been > done on what actually the need for the policy change was, the > consequences for the global routing table and whether other > alternative solutions were possible that are cheaper in execution or > more fair. > > And this is only a subset of all the issues, use your imagination and > you will come up with your own set. > > David Kessens > --- > > ********************************** 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 matthew.ford at bt.com Fri Jul 2 12:09:27 2004 From: matthew.ford at bt.com (matthew.ford at bt.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:09:27 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" Message-ID: <0AAF93247C75E3408638B965DEE11A7008723629@i2km41-ukdy.domain1.systemhost.net> Hi Marcelo, > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of > marcelo bagnulo braun > Sent: 02 July 2004 10:49 > To: Nils Ketelsen > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - > Initial allocation criteria "d)" > > Hi Nils, > > El 02/07/2004, a las 2:03, Nils Ketelsen escribi?: > > > On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:49:27AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: > > > >> Jon Lawrence writes: > >> It seems that folk have lost site of the motivation for this > >> rule. What we were trying to achieve (and believe we still > MUST strive > >> to achive) is a balance between making it straightforward for a > >> serious ISP to get an IPv6 block, but also prevent what is > essentially > >> an end site from getting an allocation direct from an RIR. > The latter > >> is not scalable long-term and must be prevented in general. > > > > I know a lot of endsites, that (essentially) have (a) a lot > more need > > for > > address space than many ISPs and (b) the realistic chance to deploy > > IPv6 in > > a large network, because they can actually force the use of IPv6 in > > their > > network. > > > > imho the difficulty here is how do you define a "large" > network, i mean > when a network is large enough to obtain its own allocation. What Thomas said. Allocations should not be made based on the size of the network, but rather on the location of the network within the overall heirarchy. In the absence of a multihoming solution, this is the only way that scalability can be preserved long-term. > > Maybe the rule should not say "planning to connect 200 organizations" > > but > > rather "will connect x devices within the next 2 years". X has to be > > negotiated. Or, instead of devices, networks. But these are much more > > useful > > numbers. As well for some ISPs (which only 5-20 customers, but these > > are > > big) as for other organizations, which in the end connect more > > end-users > > then most ISPs. > > how much is x? x is irrelevant. -- Mat From marcelo at it.uc3m.es Fri Jul 2 12:42:41 2004 From: marcelo at it.uc3m.es (marcelo bagnulo braun) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:42:41 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" In-Reply-To: <0AAF93247C75E3408638B965DEE11A7008723629@i2km41-ukdy.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <0AAF93247C75E3408638B965DEE11A7008723629@i2km41-ukdy.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <8AFDC647-CC14-11D8-A131-000D93ACD0FE@it.uc3m.es> Hi Mat, >> >> imho the difficulty here is how do you define a "large" >> network, i mean >> when a network is large enough to obtain its own allocation. > > What Thomas said. Allocations should not be made based on the size of > the network, but rather on the location of the network within the > overall heirarchy. In the absence of a multihoming solution, this is > the only way that scalability can be preserved long-term. > I agree that allocating prefixes w.r.t the location in the hierarchy preserves aggregation, which is vital for the routing system scalability. otoh, i am not sure that imposing that a network with zillions of nodes must renumber when changing isps is a reasonable requirement. that is why, defining what a very large network is may be useful regards, marcelo >>> Maybe the rule should not say "planning to connect 200 organizations" >>> but >>> rather "will connect x devices within the next 2 years". X has to be >>> negotiated. Or, instead of devices, networks. But these are much more >>> useful >>> numbers. As well for some ISPs (which only 5-20 customers, but these >>> are >>> big) as for other organizations, which in the end connect more >>> end-users >>> then most ISPs. >> >> how much is x? > > x is irrelevant. > > -- Mat > From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Fri Jul 2 12:54:59 2004 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:54:59 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" In-Reply-To: <20040702000355.GA3923@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> Message-ID: > Maybe the rule should not say "planning to connect 200 organizations" but > rather "will connect x devices within the next 2 years". X has to be > negotiated. Or, instead of devices, networks. But these are much more useful > numbers. As well for some ISPs (which only 5-20 customers, but these are > big) as for other organizations, which in the end connect more end-users > then most ISPs. In addition to a plan to connect x devices, the applicant should also be able to demonstrate that they currently have at least y devices connected to their network. This existing network does not have to be an IPv4 network, i.e. it could be GSM or some other technology. The point is that the applicant is a real network operator today with a real network and they are migrating to IPv6 technology in some way. Maybe the number y should be the same as (or similar to) the minimum size of a PI allocation. And maybe x should be the same. --Michael Dillon From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Fri Jul 2 13:08:02 2004 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:08:02 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" In-Reply-To: <068201c4601b$da5bf6a0$d60b12ac@consulintel.es> Message-ID: > Actually I'm even starting to doubt about the effectiveness of > having different RIRs. It will not be simple to have a single > entity, with different local offices, with localized training plans, > etc., but single global policy ? Sounds like the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It was definitely simpler but it simply did not work in the long run. The real world is too fluid; simple static theoretical approaches usually do not work. In the stormy seas of policy and politics, we need a calming influence to keep things under control and the current RIR system does this. A single global policy might lead us to something like this: http://www.offbeattours.co.nz/photo/18.htm But I think this: http://www.axonhost.com/active/crazywind/sailing/Log7-13.htm is good enough. > One suggestion I made several times is that instead of having 3 > regional meetings per year, we should have less regional meetings > and 1 Global RIRs (all the members) meeting. This meeting can move > each year to a different region and I'm sure will be very good to > actually help to build a global policy. The RIR regions are already quite large geographically. That's why a lot of people don't participate in the regional meetings unless it comes very close to them. That's also why RIPE NCC has had special meetings in Russia and Dubai and Kenya. If we started to have global meetings even fewer people would attend them. And most of the people who would attend a global meeting already go to ARIN, RIPE, APNIC meetings. We need to avoid applying engineering solutions and techniques to problems of policy and politics. --Michael Dillon From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jul 2 16:46:48 2004 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:46:48 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" In-Reply-To: Message from nils@steering-group.net of "Thu, 01 Jul 2004 20:03:55 EDT." <20040702000355.GA3923@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> Message-ID: <200407021446.i62Ekmhl022910@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> > I know a lot of endsites, that (essentially) have (a) a lot more need for > address space than many ISPs and (b) the realistic chance to deploy IPv6 in > a large network, because they can actually force the use of IPv6 in their > network. Note: end sites can get _lots_ of address space from their ISP. The issue is not about getting address space, it's whether address space is obtained direct from an RIR (with the presumption that it will be PI) or from the ISP. We simply do not know how to scale routing within the network if we give every end site its own direct allocation. Given that we don't know how to do it, it's _really_ hard to come up with fair/scalable policies that give only _some_ (e.g., the "biggest", however you define that) end sites a direct allocation, but not others. > I think this fight for "Allocations of Address space only to ISPs" is one of > the best reasons not to do IPv6. Actually the only reason for this rule that > I can think of is, that it is made by ISPs who as it seems either believe > they have the biggest networks or believe they could tie up customers with > that. I think both assumptions are plain wrong. No. The reason for this rule is fundamentally a technical one. We do not know how to give every end site a direct allocation and keep the routing system afloat. This is a _real_ technical issue, and is not just something the ISPs have dreamed up to capture customers. (Well, some ISPs may welcome this as a side-effect, but it is not the real motivation for the policy). Thomas From nils at druecke.strg-alt-entf.org Fri Jul 2 18:05:59 2004 From: nils at druecke.strg-alt-entf.org (Nils Ketelsen) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:05:59 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" In-Reply-To: <200407021446.i62Ekmhl022910@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <20040702000355.GA3923@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> <200407021446.i62Ekmhl022910@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20040702160559.GA6281@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 10:46:48AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: > > I know a lot of endsites, that (essentially) have (a) a lot more need for > > address space than many ISPs and (b) the realistic chance to deploy IPv6 in > > a large network, because they can actually force the use of IPv6 in their > > network. > > Note: end sites can get _lots_ of address space from their ISP. The > issue is not about getting address space, it's whether address space > is obtained direct from an RIR (with the presumption that it will be > PI) or from the ISP. What is an ISP then? Is an organization, providing a network to a few thousand (internal) suborganizations an ISP? If yes: Most companies will qualify as an ISP then, giving you the same problems you also have when allowing everyone getting address space. If no: All the universities, the governments, the RIPE itself, the IANA etc do no longer qualify for receiving allocations. > We simply do not know how to scale routing within the network if we > give every end site its own direct allocation. Given that we don't As I already mentioned earlier in this thread: You can either make IPv6 attractive to the business and hope for better technology or you make it easy for the technology and wait for people changing how they do business. I think technology will improve a long time before business people will invest money to get rid of benefits. I think this whole policy is too much tech-driven. But if the goal of the policy is to get IPv6 rolling, you can not only concentrate on a nice and shiny network from the engineering point of view. You also need to make it attractive to the potential customer. Internet on IPv4 was easy to bring to the customer, because it gave him a benefit without taking something away from him. It increased his possibilities. Now you are trying to bring a technology to the customer, that will limit his possibilities through the policies for handing out the ressource needed for the tech. Why should anyone be interested in that? > No. The reason for this rule is fundamentally a technical one. We do > not know how to give every end site a direct allocation and keep the > routing system afloat. This is a _real_ technical issue, and is not > just something the ISPs have dreamed up to capture customers. (Well, > some ISPs may welcome this as a side-effect, but it is not the real > motivation for the policy). Still the question is open: What is the logic in allowing a 200 customer (one server per customer) ISP an allocation and at the same time deny it to companies with thousands of servers and hundreds of thousands of workstations? What makes the company calling itself ISP more worthy for an allocation than ACME corp? Sorry, it only makes sense when you are an ISP. Otherwise I can not detect any logic in that. But you want the endsites to use IPv6. If only the providers use it you will end up with a very boring network. Nils -- May Brute Force be with you From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Sat Jul 3 01:32:16 2004 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 01:32:16 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" References: Message-ID: <0cbd01c4608c$d0b50a30$d60b12ac@consulintel.es> If we have less but more productive meetings, more people will participate. Moreover, most of the time is even cheaper traveling abroad than for example within Europe ... And in any case, the people really interested, will do it anyway. More concretely, the people (not just a few) that actually attend the several RIRs meetings, will save some resources. Regards, Jordi ---- Original Message ---- From: To: Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 1:08 PM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" >> Actually I'm even starting to doubt about the effectiveness of >> having different RIRs. It will not be simple to have a single >> entity, with different local offices, with localized training plans, >> etc., but single global policy ? > > Sounds like the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It was > definitely simpler but it simply did not work in the long > run. The real world is too fluid; simple static theoretical > approaches usually do not work. > > In the stormy seas of policy and politics, we need a > calming influence to keep things under control and the > current RIR system does this. A single global policy might > lead us to something like this: > > http://www.offbeattours.co.nz/photo/18.htm > > But I think this: > > http://www.axonhost.com/active/crazywind/sailing/Log7-13.htm > > is good enough. > >> One suggestion I made several times is that instead of having 3 >> regional meetings per year, we should have less regional meetings >> and 1 Global RIRs (all the members) meeting. This meeting can move >> each year to a different region and I'm sure will be very good to >> actually help to build a global policy. > > The RIR regions are already quite large geographically. > That's why a lot of people don't participate in the > regional meetings unless it comes very close to them. > That's also why RIPE NCC has had special meetings in > Russia and Dubai and Kenya. If we started to have > global meetings even fewer people would attend them. > And most of the people who would attend a global > meeting already go to ARIN, RIPE, APNIC meetings. > > We need to avoid applying engineering solutions and > techniques to problems of policy and politics. > > --Michael Dillon ********************************** 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 ccain at mistral.net Fri Jul 2 12:17:03 2004 From: ccain at mistral.net (Chris Cain) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:17:03 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" Message-ID: <7CE7ADB465026746BBCD7420348CE1C503F0B5@migsexbe01.miint.mistral.net> > imho the difficulty here is how do you define a "large" network, i mean > when a network is large enough to obtain its own allocation. > > to which i guess one option is what you mention below.... > [...] > > > > > Maybe the rule should not say "planning to connect 200 organizations" > > but > > rather "will connect x devices within the next 2 years". X has to be > > negotiated. Or, instead of devices, networks. But these are much more > > useful > > numbers. As well for some ISPs (which only 5-20 customers, but these > > are > > big) as for other organizations, which in the end connect more > > end-users > > then most ISPs. > > > > how much is x? > Since the device count is not the limited resource but the route count is how about a completely different size measure. As a first attempt: 1. Define a list of interconnect points (NAPS/interconnect exchanges) This would be fairly strict with only the main interconnect points in each country qualifying. 2. Any entity wanting an allocation must interconnect IPV6 at more than N of these points (and be an LIR of course) to qualify for an allocation. I don't know how the number of allocations would vary with N but a guess is that N=2 would be a reasonable number. Chris Cain From gert at space.net Mon Jul 5 14:25:40 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:25:40 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" In-Reply-To: <0cbd01c4608c$d0b50a30$d60b12ac@consulintel.es> References: <0cbd01c4608c$d0b50a30$d60b12ac@consulintel.es> Message-ID: <20040705122540.GD67702@Space.Net> Hi, On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 01:32:16AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > And in any case, the people really interested, will do it anyway. More > concretely, the people (not just a few) that actually attend the several > RIRs meetings, will save some resources. I certainly don't have budget (neither time nor financial) to travel to non-european places for "policy meetings". I would *love* to go to nice places in the US, or the far east, but somebody has to pay for it... OTOH, I like the existing system - it does the job pretty well. There are some regional differences, which isn't very surprising, as the member structure of the different regions is also very much different. But even if applied to a global resource some (minor) local differences make sense - if the underlying people and enterprises are different, the rules must adapt (most obvious example: the NIR structure in the AP region). Also, looking at the difficulties *today* of making a sensible policy, I can't see it getting any easier if even more people of wildly varying cultural background need to agree on something. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) 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 Mon Jul 5 14:32:49 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:32:49 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" In-Reply-To: <0AAF93247C75E3408638B965DEE11A7008723629@i2km41-ukdy.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <0AAF93247C75E3408638B965DEE11A7008723629@i2km41-ukdy.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <20040705123249.GE67702@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 11:09:27AM +0100, matthew.ford at bt.com wrote: > > imho the difficulty here is how do you define a "large" > > network, i mean > > when a network is large enough to obtain its own allocation. > > What Thomas said. Allocations should not be made based on the > size of the network, but rather on the location of the network > within the overall heirarchy. In the absence of a multihoming > solution, this is the only way that scalability can be preserved > long-term. Which again brings up the question why a largish multihomed enterprise with links to ISPs in 30 different countries and 500 subsidiaries should not be granted an IPv6 allocation, while a small ISP somewhere in rural Germany with a single uplink and 200 dial-up customers *should*. Or why a big international carrier network that just doesn't do direct end-site allocations (think of the way the "Ebone" did business: only ISP down-stream customers, all having their own IP space already) should not be able to get an IPv6 allocation. (Just as a side note: there's an I-D draft out there to tie IPv6 allocations to AS numbers... though I'm not convinced that this is a good way to go, because it's likely to deplete the AS number space even faster, and [worse] move the "who is worthy?" discussion to the AS number policy). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) 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 Mon Jul 5 14:35:15 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:35:15 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" In-Reply-To: <7CE7ADB465026746BBCD7420348CE1C503F0B5@migsexbe01.miint.mistral.net> References: <7CE7ADB465026746BBCD7420348CE1C503F0B5@migsexbe01.miint.mistral.net> Message-ID: <20040705123515.GF67702@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 11:17:03AM +0100, Chris Cain wrote: > 2. Any entity wanting an allocation must interconnect IPV6 at more than > N > of these points (and be an LIR of course) to qualify for an > allocation. > > I don't know how the number of allocations would vary with N but a guess > is that N=2 would be a reasonable number. Interesting approach, but putting seriously disadvantages on ISPs in small countries... (Also, with the current trend in "upstream connectivity gets cheaper every day", more and more ISPs don't go to IXPs anymore, as it's just too expensive for a small ISP that's not located nearby to the IXP) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) 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 Mon Jul 5 14:39:15 2004 From: nils at druecke.strg-alt-entf.org (Nils Ketelsen) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 08:39:15 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" In-Reply-To: <7CE7ADB465026746BBCD7420348CE1C503F0B5@migsexbe01.miint.mistral.net> References: <7CE7ADB465026746BBCD7420348CE1C503F0B5@migsexbe01.miint.mistral.net> Message-ID: <20040705123915.GA16076@h8000.serverkompetenz.net> On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 11:17:03AM +0100, Chris Cain wrote: > Since the device count is not the limited resource but the route count > is how about a completely different size measure. > > As a first attempt: > 1. Define a list of interconnect points (NAPS/interconnect exchanges) > This would be fairly strict with only the main interconnect points in > each country qualifying. But wouldn't that be a step into enforcing a more centralized internet infrastructure? I always thought that you want it as decentralized as possible? And this would give the peering point in the list an unfair advantage over alternative peering points in the area. I can already see peering points sueing the ripe to get on that list... And I have to admit they are right, as the RIPE should not assign monopolies. Nils -- Und wenn er einen MCSE hat, dann ist er zertifizierter Bootmanager. [ihr.name at strg-alt-entf.org (Ralph Angenendt) in de.alt.sysadmin.recovery] From jon at lawrence.org.uk Mon Jul 5 14:52:21 2004 From: jon at lawrence.org.uk (Jon Lawrence) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 13:52:21 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" In-Reply-To: <7CE7ADB465026746BBCD7420348CE1C503F0B5@migsexbe01.miint.mistral.net> References: <7CE7ADB465026746BBCD7420348CE1C503F0B5@migsexbe01.miint.mistral.net> Message-ID: <200407051352.21741.jon@lawrence.org.uk> On Friday 02 July 2004 11:17, Chris Cain wrote: > > As a first attempt: > 1. Define a list of interconnect points (NAPS/interconnect exchanges) > This would be fairly strict with only the main interconnect points in > each country qualifying. > > 2. Any entity wanting an allocation must interconnect IPV6 at more than > N > of these points (and be an LIR of course) to qualify for an > allocation. There can't be a requirement to be at an interconnect point. I'm sure there are many ISPs/large enterprises out there that don't use IXP's but take transit directly from numerous providers. Jon From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Tue Jul 6 09:56:30 2004 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:56:30 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" References: <0cbd01c4608c$d0b50a30$d60b12ac@consulintel.es> <20040705122540.GD67702@Space.Net> Message-ID: <019001c4632e$c066bb20$650a0a0a@consulintel.es> Hi Gert, I understand your point, but actually traveling to US or even AP sometimes is even cheaper than traveling to Europe, at least from Madrid ;-) Regards, Jordi ---- Original Message ---- From: "Gert Doering" To: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" Cc: Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 2:25 PM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" > Hi, > > On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 01:32:16AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> And in any case, the people really interested, will do it anyway. More >> concretely, the people (not just a few) that actually attend the several >> RIRs meetings, will save some resources. > > I certainly don't have budget (neither time nor financial) to travel > to non-european places for "policy meetings". I would *love* to go to > nice places in the US, or the far east, but somebody has to pay for it... > > OTOH, I like the existing system - it does the job pretty well. There > are some regional differences, which isn't very surprising, as the member > structure of the different regions is also very much different. But > even if applied to a global resource some (minor) local differences > make sense - if the underlying people and enterprises are different, the > rules must adapt (most obvious example: the NIR structure in the AP > region). > > Also, looking at the difficulties *today* of making a sensible policy, > I can't see it getting any easier if even more people of wildly varying > cultural background need to agree on something. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster ********************************** 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 kk at teamix.de Tue Jul 6 10:38:38 2004 From: kk at teamix.de (Kurt Kayser) Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 10:38:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)" In-Reply-To: <20040702013021.GC17400@nokia.com> References: <20040624195205.GD67702@Space.Net> <20040625075718.GH67702@Space.Net> <20040625211214.GK30006@nokia.com> <200406252253.00965.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <20040625222736.GA15693@nokia.com> <32a301c45b05$715e5c30$640a0a0a@consulintel.es> <20040702013021.GC17400@nokia.com> Message-ID: <40EA650E.8000901@teamix.de> Hi David, I mostly agree with you, but... David Kessens wrote: > IP (both versions) address space is a global resource. It would be > unfair for people operating in different regions if they would get > addresses based on different rulesets, or worse are unable to get > addresses in one region while they would be eligible in another. In > addition, multinational companies are able to do address shopping in > different regions (where it is easiest/cheapest), while local > companies have to deal with the local monopoly that has more difficult > rules than another region or has temporary service issues. I very much agree with you on that. This should not happen, BUT I believe we cannot assume the same rules apply in all regions in this world. > [On a side note: The boundaries of the regions are completely > artificial and irrelevant in a network that knows no borders. Why is > it that we have to get our resources from areas on the globe that are > rather expensive in an age when many companies are starting to move > service industry jobs to places where it is more cost effective ?] The network ist a technical transport layer, but if the network assists to bypass rules and laws - which definitively differ massively country by country - the network as a global thing will have ha hard time - no matter how many addresses it will be able to carry! We have to consider regional issues into the networking architecture, that user and content tracking must be integrateable as well as other features such as roaming and multihoming. Of course I do like freedom and free speech, but the same as customs on borders have their right of existance, taxes are essential and crime is a problem. If we don't integrate "APIs" for legal entities into the design, more and more blocks will be erected to filter traffic or scan contents in a very uneffective way, which also kills the BIG_Address-Advantage all at once. Is the phone system currently good or bad? It scaled pretty well with the country-code numbering plan and a more or less open end-device addressing scheme. OK, routing is complicated nowadays as well, but this system surely proofs, that localized concepts can be successful too. And multihoming phones is news to me anyway. If the cell breaks down, my cell-phone is dead. I do believe IP-whatever-Version will become no (even higher) success, if the design does not focus more on the application that on the network end-to-end connectivity "advantage". Actually 90% of all companies that demand multihoming, just need a redundancy for their application to stay up and not ONE addressblock that is connected by multiple providers. The whole problem starts when tying applications too close to the network. Regards, Kurt -- + Kurt Kayser - Gesch?ftsf?hrer Netzwerke - teamix GmbH + * S?dwestpark 35, 90449 N?rnberg, Germany (Old Europe) * # Tel: +49 911 30 999 0, Mobil: +49 160 5810284 # From contact at ripe.net Mon Jul 12 15:17:35 2004 From: contact at ripe.net (Membership Liaison Officer) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:17:35 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Registration Deadline - RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Nairobi 28 - 30 July 2004 Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20040712150913.01fae6d0@mailhost.ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate mails] Dear Colleagues, This is a final reminder that the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting in Nairobi will be held 28 - 30 July 2004 at the Norfolk Hotel in Nairobi, Kenya. Attendance to the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting is free of charge. However, attendees are responsible for covering their own travel and accommodation costs. REGISTRATION Please note that registration for the Regional Meeting closes on 19 July 2004. To register, please see: http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/nairobi-reg AGENDA The agenda has recently been updated with more information about speakers and presentations. For the full agenda, please see: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/regional-meetings/nairobi-2004/agenda.html TRAINING As a part of the Regional Meeting the RIPE NCC will hold a Routing Registry and DNSSec seminar in the afternoon of Thursday, 29 July 2004. In addition, RIPE NCC will be holding an LIR Training Course on Friday 30 July 2004. You can register for the LIR Training Course at: http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/trainingform.pl.cgi Information about the contents of the course can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/training/ If you have any questions about the Training Course, please contact us at: . MORE INFORMATION More information about the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Nairobi is available from: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/regional-meetings/nairobi-2004/index.html Any further questions can be sent directly to: . Regards, Nathalie Dougall Membership Liaison Officer RIPE NCC From leo at ripe.net Tue Jul 20 17:13:02 2004 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:13:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Updated RIR Comparative Policy Overview document available Message-ID: <4B4775BE-DA5F-11D8-A0C4-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that an updated version of the "RIR Comparative Policy Overview" is now available and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/mem-services/registration/rir-comp-matrix- rev.html This version, 2004-07, is numbered using the year and month of publication. It replaces version 2.1, which was published on 7 August 2003. Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Tue Jul 20 19:03:52 2004 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:03:52 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Updated RIR Comparative Policy Overview document available References: <4B4775BE-DA5F-11D8-A0C4-000A95DAB530@ripe.net> Message-ID: <035901c46e7b$89925d40$8700000a@consulintel.es> Hi Leo, I believe 3.4.2 (Mobile terminals) could have the same comment regarding RFC3177 as 3.4.1. Also, a mention to http://www.europe.ipv6tf.org/PublicDocuments/guidelines_for_isp_on_ipv6_assignment_to_customers_v1_2.pdf, could help ;-) Regarding the use of NAT (3.4.4), even when is not "so clearly" documented (unless I missed something in the last weeks) the IETF specs discourage translation (IPv6 to IPv6, which basically is what NAT does). Regards, Jordi ----- Original Message ----- From: "leo vegoda" To: Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:13 PM Subject: [address-policy-wg] Updated RIR Comparative Policy Overview document available > Dear Colleagues, > > We are pleased to announce that an updated version of the "RIR > Comparative Policy Overview" is now available and can be found at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/mem-services/registration/rir-comp-matrix- > rev.html > > This version, 2004-07, is numbered using the year and month of > publication. It replaces version 2.1, which was published on 7 August > 2003. > > Regards, > > -- > leo vegoda > Registration Services Manager > RIPE NCC > > ********************************** 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.