[Apwg-ipv6-papi] The Picture / Re: first draft?

[Daniel Stolpe]

I read the whole document again now and we are definitely making progress. 
Well done!

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013, Sander Steffann wrote:

> Hi Elvis,
>
>> The wedding is over and both me and my wife had a great time :-)
>> I'm still in Romania enjoying some great weather at my mother-in-law's
>> house.
>> As this is a very quiet place, I've found some peaceful time to compare
>> the current policy text, Emilio's document which resulted from the
>> Cosmetic Surgery Project + the already edited text.
>>
>> I'm proud to say that I am done with editing the policy text.
>>
>> I'd like to ask you all to verify all the current comments and either
>> mark them as resolved if the answers to them are satisfactory or add
>> more questions to the comments.
>>
>> Additionally, I'd like to ask all of you to read the whole document and
>> add comments to it if anything is unclear.
>> I'd like to ask Emilio to formally send the policy proposal to the WG
>> within the next 2-3 weeks.
>>
>>
>> There are still some open questions/comments:
>>
>> 2. What should be the rationale? I haven't yet compiled these.
>
> I think it should boil down to: 'IP addresses are just numbers. Creating 
> different flavours/colours/types of addresses creates problems because 
> reality never completely aligns with the (fictional) types created by 
> policy. And even if it does align today future developments (either in 
> technology or in business structure) will cause mis-alignment again.'

Boil down to ye. Maybe we are looking for some more formal wording?

>> 3. Is it ok to consider that everyone who makes an allocation is an IR?
>
> I'm not happy with the distinction between Allocate and Assign in the 
> current text. It creates different colours again. If my ISP assigns 
> addresses to me and I want to host my cousins server in my address space 
> then I violate the policy as that would be a (very small) 
> sub-assignment. The whole idea of the PAPI proposal was to fix this.

Everybody allocating/assigning IP space will be an IR in some way. I think 
the new reality is that not all of them will have to be RIPE LIR:s.

>> 4. Is it ok to consider that an LIR should not make a sub-allocation
>> smaller than /48?
>
> I think this is a bad idea. The operator decides on how to run his 
> network, and introducing artificial limits should only be done as a last 
> resort.

If it is "in his network", I agree. We can recommend certain things but 
what you do in your own network should be ut to you.

>> 7. Can someone come up with a better definition of an end-site?
>
> Not me :-)

Stick to what we have now and wait for the WG to react.

>> 9. Is it ok to have a minimum allocation of a /32? For both LIRs and the
>> customers that previously used to receive a PI assignment?
>
> No, if someone only needs a /48 they should be able to get it.

I agree with Sander.

>> 10. Is it ok to specifically mention in the policy that current PI
>> holders can extend their /48 PI assignment/now allocation (upon request)
>> to a /32 and where this is not possible, they can return the /48 and
>> receive a /32 instead?
>
> I wouldn't limit the text to current holders. Try to keep it generic.

Generic yes. And we should make the bridge from the old policy to the new 
policy easy to find. If you got a /48 PI yesterday and would have gotten a 
/32 (portable) allocation today, you should have the option.

>> 11. In the 10th paragraph, ATTRIBUTION, next to those mentioned by
>> Emilio in the CSP document, I've also added the three of us working
>> currently at the policy proposal.
>> Olaf and Daniel, if you do not want to be mentioned, please delete
>> yourselves from the document.
>> Emilio - I suppose it's fine to mention ourselves in that paragraph.
>
> I think that that is the idea of that section :-)

Yes.

>> Looking forward to your feedback.

Sorry for the delay!

Regards,

Daniel

_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe           Tel:  08 - 688 11 81                   stolpe at resilans.se
Resilans AB             Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63            http://www.resilans.se/
Box 13 054							      556741-1193
103 02 Stockholm