[address-policy-wg] help

Sat Jun 16 14:07:49 CEST 2007

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of
address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net
Sent: 16 June 2007 11:00
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: address-policy-wg digest, Vol 1 #637 - 4 msgs

Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to
	address-policy-wg at ripe.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft (Thomas Narten)
   2. Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)
   3. Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft (JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ)
   4. Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft (Randy Bush)

--__--__--

Message: 1
To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org>
cc: jordi.palet at consulintel.es,
        ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>, ipv6 at ietf.org,
        "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:19:15 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com>
Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA
draft

Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org> writes:

> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they
cou=
> ld
> > use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal
> > infrastructure's.

> I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator
> who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their
> argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does
> not work that way.

Maybe the assertion came from those who supported ARIN Policy Proposal
2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure
(http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2006_2.html), where using a /48
out of their aggregate did not solve the technical problem at hand.

At that time, the question was raised whether ULA-P solved the problem
adequately. The answer I heard was a very clear "no". And ULA-C (if
had existed then) would have.

Thomas

--__--__--

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:14:43 +0000
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
To: <ipv6 at ietf.org>
CC: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>,
	"address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Reply-To: jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft

If you doubt about folks stating anything, then you should read *before*
minutes of meetings. I'm now off-line in a plane, so can't point you to
a
specific URL, but this has been said at least in one ARIN meeting.

It has been clear across all this discussion in several exploders, that
there are both opinions, people that want ULA-C and people that don't.
What
you need to be smart here is to realize that those than don't want ULA-C
have no any objective reason to oppose to it, because implementing ULA-C
has
no negative impact in others. While opposing to it has negative impact
to
all: Folks will use global space (PA or PI) for doing the function of
ULA-C
an this is a waste, yes a small waste but a waste.

It seems to me irresponsible and unbalanced to do or try things like
changing the HD-ratio or the default assignment size to end-sites
because it
is a waste, and then oppose to those that want to have ULA-C, not
impacting
in others and avoiding one further small saving in global unicast space.

I'm not trying to convince anyone about supporting ULA-C, because it
seems
an impossible mission at least for a few, but at least, don't object to
it
if having it doesn't force you in any further implications, which is the
case.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org>
> Organizaci=F3n: Unfix
> Responder a: <ipv6-bounces at ietf.org>
> Fecha: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:00:11 +0100
> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> CC: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>, <ipv6 at ietf.org>,
> "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
>=20
> [cc'ing RIPE address policy + ARIN PPML where the discussion on this
> happened, I have not seen any 'operators' who have said the below, if
> there are they are there and can thus raise their voices because they
> will see this message; removed the silly spam scoring subject...]
>=20
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they
could
>> use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal
>> infrastructure's.
>=20
> I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator
> who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their
> argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does
> not work that way.
>=20
> Real network operators, especially involved in the RIPE or other
RIR's,
> have more than enough address space from their PA allocations that
they
> can easily receive and they very well know how to use a /48 from that
> for internal infrastructure as everybody does this. The IPv6 PA
policies
> even describe that a /48 can be used per POP of the owner of the PA
block.
>=20
> Also in the ARIN region any organization can get a /48 PI block for
> about $100/year, as such these organizations won't be needing this
> address space either as they can easily take a /64 out of that for
those
> needs. Firewalling is the key here.
>=20
>=20
>> I think the policy proposal that I sent to several regions includes
text and
>> links to other documents that can clarify this perspective.
>>=20
>> For example in RIPE NCC:
>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html
>=20
> That is your proposal indeed. No "Operator" has stood behind this and
> various people from various organizations have clearly asked you and
the
> RIPE NCC to *freeze* this proposal till at least the IETF has worked
out.
>=20
> Anybody needing a "globally unique" block can get either PA or PI
space.
> ULA-C as such is useless.
>=20
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
>=20
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6 at ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

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.

--__--__--

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:03:25 +0000
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
To: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>
CC: <ipv6 at ietf.org>,
	<address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Reply-To: jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA
draft

Hi Marla,

In fact, when I started to work on this, it was because I realized about
the
possibility to use ULA-C as the space for the microallocations and
talking
with different folks they said that it will be possible with ULA-C, but
not
ULA.

I also talked with people from the AC and they considered the point (I
was
told) to use ULA-C for the microallocations when ULA-C is available.

So my view is that probably the microallocations policy should not
expire,
but instead, be modified to make usage of the ULA-C space instead of
global
unicast.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com>
> Responder a: <marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com>
> Fecha: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:31:29 -0400
> Para: Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org>, <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> CC: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>, <ipv6 at ietf.org>,
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Conversaci=F3n: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
> Asunto: RE: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
>=20
> I think a point here that needs to be looked at is this:
>=20
> If ULA-C is addressed by IETF and then in turn we end up with RIR's
> responsible for handing out ULA-C blocks, then those existing policy's
such as
> ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal Infastructure should
be
> expired and no longer an active policy.
>=20
> And there are different flavors to the debate of why ULA-C would be
better
> than such policy as ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal
> Infastructure.  Ie Standardization, conservation ect...
>=20
> Cheers!
> Marla Azinger
> Frontier Communications
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Jeroen Massar
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:00 AM
> To: jordi.palet at consulintel.es
> Cc: ARIN People Posting Mailing List; ipv6 at ietf.org;
> address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
>=20
>=20
> [cc'ing RIPE address policy + ARIN PPML where the discussion on this
> happened, I have not seen any 'operators' who have said the below, if
> there are they are there and can thus raise their voices because they
> will see this message; removed the silly spam scoring subject...]
>=20
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they
could
>> use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal
>> infrastructure's.
>=20
> I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator
> who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their
> argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does
> not work that way.
>=20
> Real network operators, especially involved in the RIPE or other
RIR's,
> have more than enough address space from their PA allocations that
they
> can easily receive and they very well know how to use a /48 from that
> for internal infrastructure as everybody does this. The IPv6 PA
policies
> even describe that a /48 can be used per POP of the owner of the PA
block.
>=20
> Also in the ARIN region any organization can get a /48 PI block for
> about $100/year, as such these organizations won't be needing this
> address space either as they can easily take a /64 out of that for
those
> needs. Firewalling is the key here.
>=20
>=20
>> I think the policy proposal that I sent to several regions includes
text and
>> links to other documents that can clarify this perspective.
>>=20
>> For example in RIPE NCC:
>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html
>=20
> That is your proposal indeed. No "Operator" has stood behind this and
> various people from various organizations have clearly asked you and
the
> RIPE NCC to *freeze* this proposal till at least the IETF has worked
out.
>=20
> Anybody needing a "globally unique" block can get either PA or PI
space.
> ULA-C as such is useless.
>=20
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
>=20

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

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.

--__--__--

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:58:12 -1000
From: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
To: Mark Smith <ipng at 69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>
CC:  ipv6 at ietf.org, ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>, 
 address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA
draft

> If (non-globally routed) PI is the answer to the ULA-C question, is
> there going to be enough (non-globally routed) PI so that I can get a
> (non-globally routed) PI allocation for my home, at a small charge for
> the guaranteed uniqueness e.g. US$10 per annum ? How about my Personal
> Area Network that interconnects my mobile phone, portable music player
> and pedometer in my shoes. Will there be enough (non-globally routed)
> PI that everybody on the planet who might end up having that sort of
> PAN can get a (non-globally routed) PI address allocation, should they
> want one ? How about if they want separate allocations for both their
> PAN and their home network.

these are rir policy and price issues.  they are not technical issues.
except for routability, which, as smb says, don't think you ain't gonna
want to connect it some day; you will.

randy

End of address-policy-wg Digest