This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dave Wilson
dave.wilson at heanet.ie
Tue Jun 2 18:15:44 CEST 2009
I'm sorry if I missed a crucial part of the conversation, but I've stopped understanding how this discussion relates to the policy proposal at hand. There is certainly a discussion that can be had about what type of network qualifies for unique address space. These types of networks can already trivially comply with the existing policy by announcing the address space on the public internet and nullrouting all traffic. Obviously not to be encouraged, but that's a consequence of a one-line requirement like this. So I do not see how changing the policy in this way has any effect (other than the beneficial effect of not encouraging such announcements) and I have seen no amendments to the policy that would have any effect. I would encourage someone to make a policy proposal on this topic - it is something that needs airing irrespective of 2009-06. The alternate argument that I see is that we should not shirk our responsibility to set good policies simply because we "don't do routing". I fully agree with this. If we are to do it in this document, however, then we have a fragile allocation policy that is subject to the winds of operational practice. Already we see requests to allow, say, multiple /32s for LIRs that operate multiple independent (and independently routed) networks. This is not just an abstract preference: already we see requests to allow, say, multiple /32s for LIRs that operate multiple independent (and independently routed) networks. A direct consequence of the existing policy is that they may not deaggregate. So we have tied the hands of routing best practice and will continue to do so unless and until we remove the routing restriction from the addressing policy and deal with it separately. So I can't see anything in the current arguments that are really affected by this policy proposal, at least not adversely. I'd like to see it ratified. We can work on separate proposals which might affect them. All the best, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Senior Network Engineer HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +353-1-660 9040 fax: +353-1-660 3666 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ H323 GDS:0035301101738 PGP: 1024D/C757ADA9
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]