[address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)

Hi Marc,

Thanks a lot for your comments.

Let me try to explain my motivation for the expiry date: Being honest with
ourselves.

The point is that some people don't like PI (including myself), while some
other people may believe that may be (or not) an alternative technical
solution in the future. Setting a temporary policy say everybody "this is
only until we have a solution". In fact it is not required *because* the
community can just cancel this policy when this solution is available, but
it seem to me more honest to say in advance what is our plan (which anyway,
can be changed in the future). Somehow, in my point of view, it may help to
avoid some PI assignments if they are not *really* needed, or when regular
assignments are possible (for example your own case, suggesting that because
the type of infrastructure/organization, its better to go for becoming an
LIR).

Regarding the /32 or /48, I think we had very long discussions on that. I
just don't believe the /48 will be reachable from all the networks, because
many filter longer prefixes than /32, and this is not going to change
easily, so consequently, I don't think people requiring PI, will take the
risk. Is a non-sense asking for PI but not being sure it will be visible
everywhere ... I've some cases of critical infrastructures which have got
/48 instead of /32 and they are not visible, quite nice and *critical* for a
critical infrastructure :-(

Last, but not least, I also will prefer a "common" policy across the
different regions, but I think we can't call it "global", because ICANN
process, and in any case, it may be very difficult to coordinate that if not
too late and impossible ...

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Marc van Selm <marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int>
> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net>
> Fecha: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:50:30 +0200
> Para: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for
> End User Organisations (2006-01)
> 
> Jordi,
> 
> I support PI for IPv6 but I personally do not like the section:
> 
> "Expiry for Assignments:
> Assignment blocks made under this proposal to address Multihoming issues must
> be returned to the RIPE NCC after a maximum period of three years. The three
> year period will run from the date that an alternative technically valid and
> deployable solution becomes available and is accepted by the Internet
> community. Any organisations that want to avoid renumbering would, at this
> time, be able to opt to become an LIR, if they qualify, and be allocated the
> same prefix."
> 
> I'd recommend copying the accepted ARIN PI policy verbatim. One could
> discuss /32 or /48 but I would prefer a global policy over a regional policy.
> 
> I won't be at the next RIPE meeting (have other commitments) but as one of the
> authors of NATO's IPv6 adoption plan I do not like the Expiry section
> although I understand that its there as a compromise. (We recommend in our
> plan for NATO to adopt the LIR route instead). So this is my vote: I support
> PI for IPv6 but I do not support this proposal. I recommend to follow ARIN
> which has beaten us to it...
> 
> Best regards, Marc van Selm
> 
> On Wednesday 27 September 2006 11:56, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Sorry confused stats. Ignore the previous email ...
>> 
>> As the discussion period for this proposal
>> (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html) is almost over,
>> I will like to ask for the latest inputs in order to further decide how to
>> proceed.
>> 
>> Filiz arranged some stats about the discussion (thanks a lot for that !)
>> last July, and afterwards, even if the discussion period has been extended,
>> I don't recall having seen new comments.
>> 
>> The stats don't include my own postings:
>>>>> - there were 9 posts from 8 individuals about it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - 5 people supported it. 1 of these made some comments though, that he
>>>>> prefers a longer prefix than a /32 clearly in his mail.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - 1 person stated he supports "PI" but he is not supporting this
>>>>> proposal.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - 2 people said "No".
>> 
>> So someone else will like to say anything new or clarify their view in
>> favor or opposition to the proposal ?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **********************************************
>> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>> 
>> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
>> http://www.ipv6day.org
>> 
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
>> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
>> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
>> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> -- 
> 
>                 -- This mail is personal --
> All statements in this mail are made from my own personal
> perspective and do not necessarily reflect my employer's
> opinions or policies.
> 




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.