[address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 1

Let's put it that way, it is over, so let it be it. Opening the pandora box won't changing the end results. Plus current /8 maybe able last long time-- in which is a good thing.

Lu

> On 2014年7月2日, at 下午12:00, address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net wrote:
> 
> Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to
>    address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    https://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-owner 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: Use of the Reserved IP Pool
>      (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca)
>   2. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool (Richard Hartmann)
>   3. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool
>      (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca)
>   4. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool (Jim Reid)
>   5. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool
>      (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 10:47:13 +0200
> From: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" <datos at tvt-datos.es>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Message-ID: <53B3C711.9000701 at tvt-datos.es>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> As I said in this list, and since the Available IP Pool grow to near a 
> /8 I want to start this topic again.
> And the question is: Should be use the Available IP Pool 
> (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph), 
> what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 
> IPv4 allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)???
> 
> Please, comment it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> El 30/04/2014 12:23, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca escribi?:
>> Hi Carsten,
>> 
>> I know, but before sending any proposal, and to be honest, I dont know 
>> what proposal I would need to change for the use of the Reserved IP 
>> Pool, I'd like to see others opinions, changes, etc...
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> El 30/04/2014 12:20, Carsten Schiefner escribi?:
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>> 
>>>> On 30.04.2014 11:56, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote:
>>>> Seems everybody stop writting with this topic, what I have changed to
>>>> "Use of the Reserved IP Pool"
>>>> 
>>>> Are we going to discuss if we made an use of the Reserved IP Pool when
>>>> it reachs a non-defined-yet prefix to give at least another /22 to 
>>>> those
>>>> LIRs with only 1 /22?
>>> 
>>> it appears that you would need to send some text wrt. the parts of 
>>> the relevant policies you would like to see changed.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>>    -C.
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Baeza
> Centro de Observaci?n de Red
> Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a
> Television Costa Blanca S.L.
> Telf. 966190565
> WEB: http://www.tvt.es
> Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es
> 
> --AVISO LEGAL--
> 
> En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato.
> Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:56:03 +0200
> From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool
> To: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" <datos at tvt-datos.es>
> Cc: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID:
>    <CAD77+gTQMS7nsq0JP3m=YawfFhOMYkaWAV1X17bh4W9vxkK9ZQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca
> <datos at tvt-datos.es> wrote:
>> Should be use the Available IP Pool
>> (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph),
>> what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 IPv4
>> allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)???
> 
> While I can see where you are coming from, this would open the door
> for perpetual "this is the last time, promise!" situations. If this
> was accepted policy, time passed, and addresses were used up, what
> would happen with all new LIRs which only have one /21? After the next
> upgrade, what would happen with those which only have one /20?
> 
> Given the history of those threads, I can not see consensus forming to
> undo this change.
> 
> 
> Sorry,
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:10:35 +0200
> From: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" <datos at tvt-datos.es>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool
> Cc: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <53B3CC8B.3060705 at tvt-datos.es>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> 
> El 02/07/2014 10:56, Richard Hartmann escribi?:
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca
>> <datos at tvt-datos.es> wrote:
>>> Should be use the Available IP Pool
>>> (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph),
>>> what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 IPv4
>>> allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)???
>> While I can see where you are coming from, this would open the door
>> for perpetual "this is the last time, promise!" situations. If this
>> was accepted policy, time passed, and addresses were used up, what
>> would happen with all new LIRs which only have one /21? After the next
>> upgrade, what would happen with those which only have one /20?
>> 
>> Given the history of those threads, I can not see consensus forming to
>> undo this change.
> I really understand what you mean, but take our position (New LIR with 
> only a /22).
> I have IPv6 deployed on our network, at least half of our customers have 
> Dual-Stack access, the other half dont have IPv6 due to dont have a IPv6 
> enabled equiptment (most of actual home routers (TPLINK, Conceptronic, 
> etc.) dont support it.
> Our LIR have 5 stars IPv6, we have reserved from our /22 a /24 for 
> possible transitional mechanism if we run out of IPv4, but since 
> transitional mechanism harm mental health I wish to dont need it.
> 
> I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if 
> one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have 
> 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help 
> on IPv6 deployment.
> 
> To ensure Im not crazy about asking for that, APNIC is doing something 
> similar http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-105
> 
> Regards,
> 
>> 
>> Sorry,
>> Richard
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Baeza
> Centro de Observaci?n de Red
> Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a
> Television Costa Blanca S.L.
> Telf. 966190565
> WEB: http://www.tvt.es
> Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es
> 
> --AVISO LEGAL--
> 
> En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato.
> Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:35:44 +0100
> From: Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool
> To: Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca <datos at tvt-datos.es>
> Cc: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <B485997B-74D9-402A-AFC8-A43A45A99717 at rfc1035.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
>> On 2 Jul 2014, at 10:10, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca <datos at tvt-datos.es> wrote:
>> 
>> I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help on IPv6 deployment.
> 
> I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve. Or how changing address policy will solve that problem.
> 
> You say half your customers don't have IPv6-enabled CPE. This does not seem to me to be a justification for ripping up the current address policy to burn through the remaining dregs of IPv4 and leave absolutely nothing for any newcomers in 5, 10 or 20 years from now.
> 
> To be quite blunt, ISPs these days really must be shipping dual-stack CPE AND have the supporting IPv6 infrastructure in place: working v6 transport/routing; provisioning; DNS; addressing/subnetting plans; etc, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:52:48 +0200
> From: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" <datos at tvt-datos.es>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool
> To: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <53B3D670.1080600 at tvt-datos.es>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> You understandme wrong or I did not said it well.
> Im saying I have deployed IPv6 on my network. I cant "force" a customer 
> to buy another home router supporting IPv6. Anyways, as all of you know, 
> IPv6 isnt globally deployed to work only on that, so you need Dual-Stack 
> or DS-lite,NAT64, etc... if you run out of IPv4.
> My infrastucture support full IPv6 conectivity, we as an ISP do our job 
> on IPv6 deployment.
> 
> About newcomers on 5,10 or 20 years... I will not talk about 5 years, 
> but 10 or 20....if in 10-20 years IPv6 is not the main protocol as IPv4 
> is now, dude, we have a very big problem. We cant know what will happen 
> then.
> 
> But now, year 2014, LIRs with only /22 are having "troubles" managing 
> their network with only 1024 addresses. What Im trying is to help them 
> (and me!) with that additional /22 (or it could start with /24 since 
> there is a proposal to remove the minium allocation of /22) so they will 
> have a breath while IPv6 are fully deployed on the world.
> 
> A /24 can give you the chance to grow in customers without wasting in 
> expensive equipment for CGNAT, NAT64, etc.. for some time, maybe the 
> time needed by the rest of the world to finish in the IPv6 deployment.
> 
> Please, sorry about my very bad english, I know some phrases could not 
> have sense. If so, please tell me and I will try to explain in other way 
> so you all can understand what Im trying to say.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> El 02/07/2014 11:35, Jim Reid escribi?:
>> On 2 Jul 2014, at 10:10, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca <datos at tvt-datos.es> wrote:
>> 
>>> I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help on IPv6 deployment.
>> I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve. Or how changing address policy will solve that problem.
>> 
>> You say half your customers don't have IPv6-enabled CPE. This does not seem to me to be a justification for ripping up the current address policy to burn through the remaining dregs of IPv4 and leave absolutely nothing for any newcomers in 5, 10 or 20 years from now.
>> 
>> To be quite blunt, ISPs these days really must be shipping dual-stack CPE AND have the supporting IPv6 infrastructure in place: working v6 transport/routing; provisioning; DNS; addressing/subnetting plans; etc, etc.
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Baeza
> Centro de Observaci?n de Red
> Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a
> Television Costa Blanca S.L.
> Telf. 966190565
> WEB: http://www.tvt.es
> Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es
> 
> --AVISO LEGAL--
> 
> En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato.
> Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 1
> ************************************************