[Apwg-ipv6-papi] [pdo] last changes?
Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG
Olaf.Sonderegger at abraxas.ch
Mon Sep 16 11:25:34 CEST 2013
@ Daniel: Yes, that's my point.
Cheers, Olaf
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Stolpe [mailto:stolpe at resilans.se]
Sent: Montag, 16. September 2013 11:04
To: Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG
Cc: elvis at velea.eu; Sander Steffann; Gert Doering; Ingrid Wijte; Andrea Cima; Marco Schmidt; apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net
Subject: RE: Re: [Apwg-ipv6-papi] [pdo] last changes?
Now we seem to have lost the list. I put it back in the CC again.
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013, Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG wrote:
> Dear Elvis
>
> Thanks a lot for your editing. I started a similar definition of End User, but a friend had an emergency, and he was took to the hospital.
>
> Updated version is nearby its final stage. I found only one last point.
>
>
> Marco started a discussion about section 5.3 last time:
> ---
> 5.3 Sub-allocations Shorter Than a /48 to a Single End Site When a
> single End Site requires a sub-allocation shorter than a /48, it must
> request the sub-allocation with documentation or materials that
> justify the request. Requests for multiple or additional prefixes
> exceeding a /48 sub-allocation for a single End Site must be evaluated
> and by the RIPE NCC.
> ---
> I think, an evaluation of sub-allocations for End Sites aren't
> necessary. If a LIR or an EU distributes its allocations in a manner,
> that it run out of addresses, RIPE NCC could reject LIR's/EU's
> additional allocation request. I know, this way is more reactive than
> proactive. But otherwise, RIPE NCC has to evaluates a lot of request,
> which want be necessary.
>
> Could you shortly explain, what was your initial idea with this section?
Looks lika heritage from the old ways? I can agree that if you waste to many addresses in the same place it could be a better way to make life harder the next time you ask for more space, rather than having the NCC look at each sub-allocation immediately.
I like the idea of delegated responsibility. Request with documentation yes, but it can stay att LIR level until the next NCC audit. I guess that was your point Olaf?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elvis Velea [mailto:elvis at velea.eu]
> Sent: Samstag, 14. September 2013 17:23
> To: Sander Steffann; Gert Doering; Ingrid Wijte; Andrea Cima;
> Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG; Daniel Stolpe; Marco Schmidt
> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Apwg-ipv6-papi] [pdo] last changes?
>
> Hi,
>
> the message below needs moderator approval on the [Apwg-ipv6-papi] as it was too large due to the attached doc.
> "Message body is too big: 254011 bytes with a limit of 40 KB"
>
> Therefore, I'm sending it to everyone subscribed to that list :)
>
> cheers,
> elvis
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Apwg-ipv6-papi] [pdo] last changes?
> Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:13:18 +0200
> From: Elvis Velea <elvis at velea.eu>
> Reply-To: elvis at velea.eu
> To: Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG
> <Olaf.Sonderegger at abraxas.ch>
> CC: Daniel Stolpe <stolpe at resilans.se>, "pdo at ripe.net" <pdo at ripe.net>, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net>, "apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net"
> <apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> again, sorry for the lack of presence in the past few days. I have been very busy setting up various procedures in our company.
>
> @Olaf - sorry I did not reply to the e-mail from the 11th..
>
> I managed to find a few hours today and worked on the document taking
> into account all your ideas :)
>
> I my mind I had the following:
> - remove the idea of portable addresses, allocations are allocations.
> - remove the crazy idea of PIR, not sure what I was smoking that day
> :)
> - define the EU
> - re-define the End Site
>
> Changes:
> - added 2.5 End User (EU) definition
> - updated 2.6 - End Site definition
> - moved 5.3 (Allocations made by the RIR) to 5.0 (I think it adds a
> bit more structure to the policy this way)
> - updated 5.1.2 to clarify what is the initial allocation size for LIR
> and for the EU
> - updated 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 (removed the idea of portable allocation)
> - updated "LIR's customer" with EU in various places
> - clarified where we use IR, LIR, EU or End Site
>
> I'm hoping that this time the update turned out quite good.
>
> The document is attached.
>
> cheers,
> elvis
>
> On 9/11/13 1:02 PM, Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG wrote:
>> Dear Daniel, Dear Elvis
>>
>> I could edit file while I travel home by train.
>>
>> Should I take the last document from Marco? Or did you change everything on Google Drive?
>>
>> Cheers, Olaf
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Stolpe [mailto:stolpe at resilans.se]
>> Sent: Mittwoch, 11. September 2013 12:53
>> To: Elvis Velea
>> Cc: Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG; pdo at ripe.net; Marco
>> Schmidt; apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net
>> Subject: Re: [Apwg-ipv6-papi] [pdo] last changes?
>>
>>
>> I'm currently not sure about what time I might have. Probably not very much unfortunatly.
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Elvis Velea wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> ok, introducing a new term gave a heart attack to Gert.. that
>>> usually means it's a bad idea ;)
>>>
>>> I will read the feedback each of you has provided and will come back
>>> with a revised document ;)
>>>
>>> However, these days I am very very busy, so I am not sure I will be
>>> able to find time to revise it by Friday.. I will try as much as I can.
>>>
>>> I like the definitions from Marco, can we add him to the list of
>>> proposers ? (joke)
>>>
>>> If any of you has time by Friday to work on these changes, let me know..
>>>
>>> If not, I'll try on Friday or during the weekend to come up with the
>>> last (this time I mean it) version.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> elvis
>>>
>>> On 9/10/13 2:48 PM, Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG wrote:
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>>> 1)
>>>>> Definition "End User (EU)" with a clear demarcation to "End Site". End users are the organisations that can receive sub-allocations or portable allocations. End sites are LIRs and EU locations of local networks/customers (like in your graph section 2).
>>>>
>>>> +1, that's a good proposal and a better way.
>>>>
>>>>> 2)
>>>>> So why not simply write "LIR and EU" when something applies for
>>>>> both, and only "LIR" or "EU" if something applies only for one type?
>>>>
>>>> +1, that's also a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> What are you meaning, Elvis?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Olaf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: apwg-ipv6-papi-bounces at ripe.net
>>>> [mailto:apwg-ipv6-papi-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt
>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 10. September 2013 10:17
>>>> To: Gert Doering
>>>> Cc: pdo at ripe.net; apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [Apwg-ipv6-papi] [pdo] last changes?
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> First of all I think the topics that you discuss are too relevant to just implement them on the fly. The risk of inconsistencies in the proposal is just too big.
>>>>
>>>> Also I checked with the webmasters and they need some time to re-do all the pages, especially the policy text. They need to have enough notification time to schedule their work as their are also busy with all the upcoming meetings (MENOG, ENOG, RIPE).
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> May I propose the following:
>>>>
>>>> - the proposal gets back to you, you all agree what to edit and
>>>> then send the final version back to the RIPE NCC
>>>> - if you wish Comms make another review of the changes
>>>> - our webmaster get the final version and can set up everything and
>>>> then we publish :)
>>>>
>>>> If you agree during this week on the final version I think it is realistic that we can publish (early) next week. Then the discussion phase would end perfectly timed during the RIPE meeting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe the following two issues spotted by you should be solved before publishing:
>>>>
>>>> 1)
>>>> Definition "End User (EU)" with a clear demarcation to "End Site". End users are the organisations that can receive sub-allocations or portable allocations. End sites are LIRs and EU locations of local networks/customers (like in your graph section 2).
>>
>>>>
>>>> 2)
>>>> Currently "IR" is often used when it should read "LIRs and End Users"
>>>> (for example in section 5) which could lead to confusion as one
>>>> hand RIRs are also IRs and on the other hand it is not clear that
>>>> EUs are IRs (and should they actually always seen as Internet
>>>> Registry?)
>>>>
>>>> As Gert mentioned it might be too much to introduce now also new
>>>> terms in this policy proposal (you will change the IPv6 world anyhow ;-) ).
>>>>
>>>> So why not simply write "LIR and EU" when something applies for
>>>> both, and only "LIR" or "EU" if something applies only for one type?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you choose this way then we can keep the biggest part of the
>>>> current version, only extended by a more clear EU definition and replace "IR"
>>>> where it is applicable.
>>>>
>>>> This would be my practical approach.
>>>> (for example Comms only would need to review the EU definition)
>>>>
>>>> But again, you have the last word as this is your baby :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've attached you the latest reviewed proposal version again. Do
>>>> all the changes you would like to do and agree on it. Then you send
>>>> me your final version back.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Marco
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/9/13 9:38 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:20:53PM +0200, Elvis Velea wrote:
>>>>>> Introducing the PIR - Portable Internet Registry \o/
>>>>> Uh, what?
>>>>>
>>>>> And - no, let's not go there. RIR and LIR are well-defined terms
>>>>> and well-understood, introducing something that sounds similar
>>>>> enough to be confused with it while not being part of the "IR tree structure"
>>>>> would need quite a few *good* arguments to convince me.
>>>>>
>>>>>> @Marco, please ask Comms to update the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - add
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.5 Portable Internet Registry (PIR)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Portable Internet Registry is an IR which can request (via a
>>>>>> Sponsoring LIR) a portable allocation from the RIR. The PIR
>>>>>> sub-allocates address space to the users of the network services
>>>>>> that it provides.
>>>>> If I have anything to say here, please let's *not* do that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I think we should not use the term "IR" for "something that
>>>>> acts like a LIR but is not".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, where is "portable allocation" coming from? All allocations
>>>>> are "portable", by definition...
>>>>>
>>>>> Gert Doering
>>>>> -- APWG chair
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> mvh
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
mvh
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
More information about the Apwg-ipv6-papi
mailing list