[address-policy-wg] Re: 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> Hi Nick,
> 
> I believe it will be more appropriate to use in those cases ULA or
> ULA-central (this needs to be rescued and moved up in the IETF process, as I
> already voiced in ppml and in the last ARIN meeting).
> 
> However, the point here is to know if you will still support this policy
> proposal "as is" right now, so we can finally get this done and then new
> changes applied in the future, or if I need to send a new version which
> doesn't include the "advertisement" bit, so we can vote for both ?

For obvious reasons I cannot speak for Nick, but my take here is - get it out
through the door as it is, if there's support for it. Then we can start a next
round to improve. The "real" issue at the moment is to change the address
distribution policy, and not the fine-tuning of routing recommendations.

> By the way, trying to answer also Wilfried's email, I think the "to whom" it
> is advertised may be clarified as "The LIR must advertise *to the next hops*
> the single address block through a single aggregated prefix.".

This is one aspect I am not so sure about: "to the next hops". There may well
be very good reasons to advertise smaller portions to your next hop(s). And
"we" really don't care about that, do we? The "real" issue imho is to make
sure that just one prefix makes it to the core/DFZ/<your favourite term here>.

And as has been pointed out already, from the point of view of an RIR this is
(should be?) more like a (strong) recommendation than a formal *address policy*
aspect. If this recommendation is violated, the RIR doesn't have appropriate
means to sanction anyway...

Wilfried.

> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>De: Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie>
>>Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net>
>>Fecha: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:14:07 +0000
>>Para: <Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at>
>>CC: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
>>Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until
>>19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
>>
>>
>>>Just as an editorial comment: We should also remove the "requirement" to
>>>advertise the prefix. This is another (useless) artificial barrier to the
>>>deployment of IPv6 as a generally avalable technology for building networks.
>>
>>I'd like to second Wilfred on this point.  Just because RIPE has allocated
>>address space, this does not mean that the address space will be visible on
>>the Internet at any particular stage.  RIPE NCC provides a general address
>>space registry function, not just a public internet address registry function.
>>
>>While there is an argument for using PI for private assignments, right now
>>we can't do this in ipv6, because there is no ipv6 PI space yet.  But more
>>importantly, there are situations where it may be appropriate for a private
>>entity to register large amounts of v6 address space, where PI would be
>>less appropriate due to sub-assignment issues.
>>
>>
>>Nick Hilliard
>>-- 
>>Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations      | Tel: +353 1 6169698
>>3 Westland Square    | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981
>>Dublin 2, Ireland    | Exchange Association    | Email: nick at inex.ie