[Apwg-ipv6-papi] [pdo] last changes?
Marco Schmidt
mschmidt at ripe.net
Mon Sep 16 11:43:23 CEST 2013
Hello,
I had a look in your latest changes and it looks good so far.
Regarding OIaf's and Daniels comment please see my answer below:
On 9/16/13 11:04 AM, Daniel Stolpe wrote:
>
> 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?
>
If you would remove that section then the RIPE NCC would have no base to
reject additional allocation requests. Because there would be nothing in
the policy to restrict an LIR/EU to sub-allocate for example 1000x /48's
or a /38 to one customer - and this customer could be your grandmother
in her little house ;)
Maybe I've chosen an extreme example but just to show that this would be
an easy way to reach the HD-ratio - and then on what ground the RIPE NCC
can discuss that an LIR/EU can not give several /48's to one end site?
Already now we only would evaluate such request if somebody really
estimate to connect more than 65K hosts in a subnet (so far only one
time a University managed to justify that).
Most of the cases we get such requests when in reality an end user need
more than a /48 because he has several end sites or customers - and then
we recommend to assign a /48 per end site or use the status
AGGREGATED-BY-LIR
Regarding your proposal I just would like to stress again that I would
need the confirmation from *all* proposer to the final version.
Kind regards,
Marco
>
>> -----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