[ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michael Markstaller
mm at elabnet.de
Wed Aug 29 22:46:59 CEST 2012
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 29.08.2012 11:05, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 03:06:08AM +0200, Michael Markstaller > wrote: >> Just my 2ct: not any University or worse religous campaign >> should block a /8 or /16 without having to state HERE&NOW why and >> for what they really need&use it. They need exactly 1 IP for >> every 65536 concurrently active student to NAT and 1 for each >> public service at most, lets put a /22 for infra on top and then >> we're fine.. > > This is not how the old Internet used to work, and it is not how it > works today - nobody is forced to use NAT by the RIRs, and that's > how it must be (*and* it has nothing to do with the question of ERX > space governance whatsoever). Ok, this was a intentionally a little provocative. I - admittetly - don't know much about the internals and policys/proposals of InterNIC or RIPE NCC and what this WG is really about. And learned much today from the various posts. >> We have to do either I guess, at least we do, according to >> RIPE-policys. So we're playing with different cards here, legacy >> holders are being asked "what might be a nice proposal they >> like", I'm not asked what "might be nice for me" > > ERX space has not been given out under RIPE policies, so they do > not apply. Period. There is no law, legal contract, or anything > else that would make RIPE policies automagically apply to ERX space > (and even *then*, there would not be any RIPE policy forcing a user > of IP address space to use NAT if they do not want to). Well I remember ther (was?) or is some policy or draft suggesting this at least for 2G/3G networks which not all providers do and, well which is IMHO nonsense in context of IPv4 really running out to give each Gadget in my pocket a public IP.. > It would solve nothing. If people insist on cementing their IPv4 > world for a few more years, they would have *more* stuff to move to > IPv6 in the long run - nothing solved. Agreed, not solve but shift the "problem" - though, I'm no enemy of v6, just to tell you my real-world view of IPv6: No single customer was ever interested in, no single hit on the servers we ran a while back around v6-Day, no single user on the xDSL we provide wanted to use it; the only result were new problems nobody pays for. Don't take this as a rant please, I know about your efforts in many ways, the problems are sourced by low usage/training etc. But it's a real big chicken-egg-problem and as a very small provider in business my primary job is to get a working infrastructure and happy customers that pay money; none of them ever wanted to pay a single Euro for v6 (maybe because you have all of them ;)) On 29.08.2012 12:21, Gert Doering wrote: > > Now, the policy proposal raised here is not an *address space* > policy proposal, but an *ncc service* policy proposal - which > governs the way the NCC runs their, uh, services. And I think this > is a reasonable approach - find something that the ERX holder > community and the RIPE NCC is happy with, walk it through an open > consensus process, and then nobody can argue that the RIPE NCC is > going out and bullying/blackmailing > ERX holders over their addresses... Thats a key point, I didnt really get so far.. On 29.08.2012 21:58, Carsten Schiefner wrote:> Hi Nick, > > On 29.08.2012 19:33, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> On 29/08/2012 17:09, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >>> in addition to ideas stated here to take away our legacy IP >>> allocations and give us /22s and force us to use NAT and >>> reengineer our 10,000 node university networks >> >> No idea where this idea came from. No-one has ever suggested >> this or even remotely implied it. Quite the opposite in fact. > > may I suggest you re-read Michael Markstaller's posting of Wed, 29 > Aug 2012 03:06:08 +0200? It's archived at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2012-August/001738.html It was me, yes, and sorry for the rant. It wasn't based on any known policy or proposal but just on my Opinion and then 2ct.. Since I know now, again the proposal discussed (quoted again) is not an *address space* policy proposal, but an *ncc service* policy proposal. Ok.. But then I have another 2ct if this is relevant under this topic: I found no details in the proposals how the deal with "selling v4 addresses"(*) which will IMHO happen soon when v4 is fully exhausted. *I don't vote for this* but one or another way, it might be "cheaper" to "buy" v4 space then migrate networks, so it will happen. If I get with limited knowledge things right now, this might be a topic that could be of relevance in future. *) This was discussed quite a while back, maybe on another WG for a short time but AFAIR didn't make it to a conclusion. best regards Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlA+f8MACgkQaWRHV2kMuAKuKwCfR1xibpJJvd6UugoehCbRLy+9 6zIAn0PMuVXgYWM0uLN4CnzCK5eaxq0L =xMKo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]