[Apwg-ipv6-papi] [apwg-chairs] Test

Tue Jul 2 15:59:54 CEST 2013

Whatever you say guys. :-)

As we are in the middle of the summer i suspect we won't have muck action 
for some time now but in order to get started - before we actually turn 
into the writing - we should deal with some agenda and time line issues.

Like:

* Who are we (presentation)
* Relevant background experiences
* Goal of the project
* Who does what
* When

I can start somewhere.

I joined the KTHNOC (KTH = Kunglinga Tekniska Högskolan or the Royal 
Institute of Technology, NOC of course means Network Operations Centre) in 
the mid 1990's. That is where things happened in Sweden historically and 
even if I wasn't there from the start I carry the heritage. The man who 
did most of the pioneering work was Björn Eriksen - unlike the more shouty 
Peter Löthberg, a man of few words. He got to handle the .se TLD 
personally and he got a few chunks of IP space from the IANA (or rather 
Jon Postel) to be used in Sweden. We did some other stuff like i.root and 
the DGIX (a funny project meant to be a distributed global internet 
exchange point). And of course we ran SUNET and NORDUnet (the Swedish and 
Nordic NREN:s).

However, about 5 or 6 years ago most of this business had left KTHNOC and 
the major thing left was the non-SUNET/NORDUnet registry. Some of the 
staff then started a private company called Resilans AB and kept the 
registry running. We handle block of legacy space from a /14 up to a /16. 
In total a /12. The big blocks have the rare status of "ALLOCATED PI" (I 
know some peole say that legacy space is not PI or PA) and the sub 
delegations are ASSIGNED PI. It wouldn't really have to be but i makes 
sense somehow.

The point here is that for years, we have been handling IPv4 space in a 
vert neutral way. Of course the space used for SUNET/NORDUnet could have 
been (and should have been if applied for later) PA and the rest PI but 
since it was all legacy there was no real difference. It did not matter if 
the end user wanted a /24 or a /18, we just handled out addresses. Quite a 
lot like the model for TLD:s. I have to say (sorry Emilio) that the 
end-users are much happier to talk to us than to the RIPE NCC. ;-)

But the idea of a registry/registrar IP space model is probably a 
completely different matter.

The end-users are everyting from private people, small companies, huge 
corporate groups, local/regional/national government/administration.

When we tell them they should start thinking about IPv6 the smaller 
and simpler ones are usually happy with a PI /48, now that it is 
available. But somehow the story about IPv6 contiunes with a lot of talk 
about the blessings of IPv6 and a lot of rules stopping people from 
actually using it. I remember the days when you had to lie about 200 IPv6 
customers to get your first /35 and then you couldn't really use it anyway 
for some reason and then there was PI - but only for multihoming etc.

The major issue now is that end-users not happy with a single /48 really 
sticks their head into a concrete wall. I very well remember a well know 
content proviver that wanted 6 x /48 because they had 6 sites globally. 
After a whole lot of discussions they were offered 5 x /48 because they 
hade the same backup ISP at two U.S. sites.

And then we have big organisations, it migh be either county 
administrations or multinational corporations, that feel they would have 
much more freedom with say a /32. They are by no means ISP:s or even the 
slightest IPS:ish. Nevertheless we have to tell them that yes, we can 
arrange for a /32 or even a /29 but we have to start a separate LIR for 
you and you will get PA space.

What I would like to see is a situation where end-users get what they need 
if they can explain why they need it. If it is about BGP table growth, a 
/48 PI is one route and so would a /44 or a /38 be.

I have to point out that I think Gerts (was there anybody else involved) 
original writing was a very good start.

How are your holiday plans? I will be away next week, then back to work 
for a week and then away for another three weeks. I might still be reading 
some e-mails.

On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Elvis Velea wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm also fine with Google docs :)
>
> cheers,
> elvis
>
> On 7/2/13 1:19 PM, Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Google docs is fine.
>>
>> Olaf
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: apwg-ipv6-papi-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:apwg-ipv6-papi-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
>> Sent: Dienstag, 2. Juli 2013 11:36
>> To: Emilio Madaio
>> Cc: apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net
>> Subject: Re: [Apwg-ipv6-papi] [apwg-chairs] Test
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:43:00AM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote:
>>> This is a test
>>
>> Works, thanks.
>>
>> Whoever else received this: I have asked Emilio to set up a mailing list for the editorial group - there's the 3 volunteers on it, Sander and I, and Emilio to help with formal questions if needed.
>>
>> As for "how to write the document" - Sander and I used Google docs for collaboration in the initial concept paper, and since this is going to be public anyway, that would be a viable approach.  But that's your choice... :-)
>>
>> Gert
>> --
>> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>>
>> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
>> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
>> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
>> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Apwg-ipv6-papi mailing list
>> Apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net
>> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/apwg-ipv6-papi
>>
>
> -- 
> Kind regards, Elvis Velea
>
> _______________________________________________
> Apwg-ipv6-papi mailing list
> Apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net
> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/apwg-ipv6-papi
>
>

Best Regards,

Daniel Stolpe

_________________________________________________________________________________
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