[address-policy-wg] RE: Question

The NAv6TF is in the ARIN region. If individuals associated with it think
that ARIN should adopt a policy or change an existing policy they should not
only say so they should propose such a policy. Remember policies in the ARIN
region, like in all of the RIRs is made not by the RIR organization staff
and board but by the community in the region. ARIN staff will be more than
happy to help anyone through the process, which by the way, while an orderly
and formal process is not onerous, but one designed to provide for an open
and honest discussion of any policy proposal before it is adopted. If you
are interested in pursuing this, please contact me and I will get a staff
member to assist you.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-
> admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Latif Ladid ("The New Internet based on
> IPv6")
> Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 9:53 AM
> To: 'Bound, Jim'; 'Tony Hain'; 'PPML'; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Cc: 'Richard Jimmerson'; 'Davis, Terry L'; ollivier.robert at eurocontrol.fr;
> narten at us.ibm.com; 'Brig, Michael P CIV DISA GES-E'; 'Pouffary, Yanick';
> 'Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI'
> Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Question
> 
> 
> 
> The technical community should fix this one before the ITU sees this as
> another chance to have a political say on the IPv6 addressing. These
> things
> leak fast. My advice is that ARIN should seriously own this issue before
> the
> ITU turns it to a sovereignty issue, which they could for sure win this
> time. I know one of their noodles is sizzling at it.
> 
> Cheers
> Latif
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bound, Jim [mailto:Jim.Bound at hp.com]
> Sent: 08 April 2006 14:52
> To: Tony Hain; PPML; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Cc: Richard Jimmerson; Latif Ladid ("The New Internet based on IPv6");
> Davis, Terry L; ollivier.robert at eurocontrol.fr; narten at us.ibm.com; Brig,
> Michael P CIV DISA GES-E; Pouffary, Yanick; Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC
> STCD SRI; Bound, Jim
> Subject: RE: Question
> 
> Tony,
> 
> Excellent response and educational for sure.  It is my belief that the
> corporate business model today for operating networks may be broken and I
> think you supported that below?  If not my apologies for bad parsing?
> 
> 
> Their models were fine for an IPv4 world where NAT was required and some
> even confuse NAT with securing ones network (and some programs in the U.S.
> Government) and that is simply bad policy and view.
> 
> In the interim can this be resolved by RIRs creating some kind of
> additional
> wording that address reclaim will be done in manner that is negotiable,
> and
> do no harm to corporate or government business operations?  This would buy
> us time to work on the issue and stop the FUD around this topic?
> 
> Also I am willing to sponsor a world wide IPv6 Forum BOF on PI and
> addressing you can lead as ajunct to one of our regular meetings you can
> lead for an entire day and we get the right players in the room.  So think
> about that as another option too.
> 
> But do enjoy the beach this thread does not have to be resolved this week
> :--)
> 
> Really want to hear from all of you and discussion Terry D., Latif,
> Yanick,
> Dave G. Mike B. etc.
> 
> Thanks
> /jim
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf at tndh.net]
> > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 7:57 PM
> > To: 'PPML'; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> > Cc: 'Richard Jimmerson'; Bound, Jim; 'Latif Ladid ("The New Internet
> > based on IPv6")'; 'Davis, Terry L'; ollivier.robert at eurocontrol.fr;
> > narten at us.ibm.com; 'Brig, Michael P CIV DISA GES-E'; Pouffary, Yanick;
> > 'Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI'
> > Subject: RE: Question
> >
> > A public answer to a private question as I have been sitting on a
> > beach for awhile without the laptop and missed some related
> > conversations ... :)
> >
> > > Is the outcome really open for discussion on the PI issue?
> > It doesn't
> > > sound like it is.
> >
> > In the minds of some the route scaling issue outweighs any argument
> > for PI.
> > When taken to its extreme, there is a valid point that a broken
> > routing system serves no one. At the same time the dogmatic stance by
> > the ISPs enforcing lock-in is just as broken both for large
> > organizations with financial or legal requirements for operational
> > stability, and the individual consumer/small business with limited
> > budgets looking for true competition. The hard part is finding the
> > middle ground in a way that limits the exposure to a potential routing
> > collapse.
> >
> > I personally refuse to declare some needs legitimate and others not,
> > as the only point of such differentiation is to establish a power
> > broker. When all uses are legitimate, the problem boils down to the
> > technical approach that can be scaled as necessary to contain growth
> > in the routing system.
> > This is the logic that leads me to the bit-interleaved geo that can be
> > aggregated in varying size pockets as necessary using existing BGP
> > deployments. We can start flat and implement aggregation over time
> > when a region becomes too large to handle. One nice side effect of
> > this geo approach is that it mitigates the continuing political
> > demands for sovereign rights to IPv6 space.
> >
> > Any aggregation approach will force the business models to change from
> > current practice. That is not as bad a thing as the alarmists will
> > make it out to be, because their accountants are claiming the current
> > model is a broken money looser as it is (which if so means they will
> > eventually change anyway). The primary difference is that there will
> > need to be aggregation intermediaries between the last-mile and
> > transit providers. The current model eliminates these middle-men by
> > trading off their routing mitigation service against a larger routing
> > table (actually they already exist in the right places but are
> > currently limited to layer2 media aggregators). The anti-PI bunch is
> > trying to use social engineering to directly counter the bottom line
> > business reality that the customer will always win in the end.
> > Rather than accept this situation and constructively work on the
> > necessary business model and technology developments, they effectively
> > stall progress by staunchly claiming there is no acceptable technical
> > approach that works within the current business structure.
> >
> > Making the RIRs be the police deciding who qualifies for PI and who
> > does not just adds to their workload and raises costs. The
> > beneficiaries of this gatekeeper approach are the ISPs that claim they
> > need full routing knowledge everywhere, while the cost burden for
> > supporting the waste-of-time qualification/evaluation work is borne by
> > the applicant.
> > Given that the most vocal and organized membership in the RIR
> > community are the ISPs it is easy to understand why it would seem like
> > the PI issue is already decided as closed. I tend to believe it will
> > just drag out until enough of the corporate world becomes aware of the
> > IPv4 exhaustion in light of their growth needs that they collectively
> > appear at their RIR and demand an immediate solution. Unfortunately
> > this 'wait till the last minute' tactic will likely result in a
> > reactionary quickie with its own set of long term side effects.
> >
> > A while back I tried to hold a BOF on geo PI in the IETF, but was told
> > that
> > shim6 was the anointed solution. Now that at least nanog has told the
> > IAB where to put shim6 it might be possible to get the current IESG to
> > reconsider. In any case the result would be a technical approach that
> > would still require RIRs to establish policies around. As long as they
> > are dominated by the ISPs it will be difficult to get real PI.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >