[address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 10

I personally believe we might no longer need to distinguish PI and
PA--it might solve all the question all together.

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:49 AM,  <address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net> wrote:
> Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to
>         address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6    Requirement
>       for Receiving Space from the Final /8) (Sander Steffann)
>    2. Re: 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement
>       for Receiving Space from the Final /8) (Tore Anderson)
>    3. Re: 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6    Requirement
>       for Receiving Space from the Final /8) (Sander Steffann)
>    4. Re: 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement
>       for Receiving Space from the Final /8) (Richard Hartmann)
>    5. Re: 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6    Requirement
>       for Receiving Space from the Final /8) (Sander Steffann)
>    6. Re: 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement
>       for Receiving Space from the Final /8) (Tore Anderson)
>    7. Re: 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement
>       for Receiving Space from the Final /8) (Carlos Friacas)
>    8. Re: 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing IPv6    Requirement
>       for Receiving Space from the Final /8) (Erik Bais)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 21:08:41 +0200
> From: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing
>         IPv6    Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
> To: Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled at gmail.com>
> Cc: Gert D?ring <gert at space.net>,       "address-policy-wg at ripe.net Working
>         Group" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <092F992E-EC5E-403D-90DC-CF8186258D89 at steffann.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi Jan,
>
>>> Historically it was put in there as an encouragement for "last /8" LIRs
>>> to "do something with IPv6"...
>>
>> I know that, but that's not quite what I meant.
>>
>> What I meant is that I don't see why the current requirement for IPv6 PA is there, but that the current document didn't already have IPv6 PI as a valid requirement.
>>
>> Not either-or.
>
> I first thought that the last /8 policy was written before IPv6 PI for LIRs became possible, so I checked:
> - IPv6 PI for LIRS was 2009-08 (concluded in 2009)
> - Last /8 was 2010-02
>
> Seems I was wrong. IPv6 PI for LIRs did exist at the time that the last /8 policy was written. I think at the time we just didn't even consider LIRs that didn't want/need IPv6 PA space.
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 21:53:34 +0200
> From: Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing
>         IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
> To: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>, Jan Ingvoldstad
>         <frettled at gmail.com>
> Cc: Gert D?ring <gert at space.net>,       "address-policy-wg at ripe.net Working
>         Group" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <5367EC3E.5040209 at fud.no>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> * Sander Steffann
>
>> I think at the time we just didn't even consider LIRs that didn't
>> want/need IPv6 PA space.
>
> Right. But the summary of the proposal identifies the *actual* problem here:
>
>   ?In order to qualify [for IPv6 PA], they need to request an IPv6
>   allocation and subsequently return their existing PI assignment
>   (per ripe-589 section 7.1)?
>
> If that PI assignment is already in use, a requirement to renumber and
> return it might be a showstopper for getting PA space. Renumbering is
> *hard* - it is *a lot* of work.
>
> So while I don't think 2014-04 is harmful in any way and I don't have
> any objections to it, I do find it quite puzzling that it does not try
> to fix the actual problem in ripe-589 section 7.1 - which, if 2014-04
> were to pass, would remain just as ?downright deleterious to IPv6
> adoption? as before.
>
> Tore
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 22:02:36 +0200
> From: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing
>         IPv6    Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
> To: Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no>
> Cc: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net Working Group"
>         <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>, Gert D?ring <gert at space.net>
> Message-ID: <4815E7AE-510E-4A78-81B9-AF4555D34ECF at steffann.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Hi,
>
>>> I think at the time we just didn't even consider LIRs that didn't
>>> want/need IPv6 PA space.
>>
>> Right. But the summary of the proposal identifies the *actual* problem here:
>>
>>  ?In order to qualify [for IPv6 PA], they need to request an IPv6
>>  allocation and subsequently return their existing PI assignment
>>  (per ripe-589 section 7.1)?
>
> Yep, seen that.
>
>> If that PI assignment is already in use, a requirement to renumber and
>> return it might be a showstopper for getting PA space. Renumbering is
>> *hard* - it is *a lot* of work.
>
> Ack
>
>> So while I don't think 2014-04 is harmful in any way and I don't have
>> any objections to it, I do find it quite puzzling that it does not try
>> to fix the actual problem in ripe-589 section 7.1 - which, if 2014-04
>> were to pass, would remain just as ?downright deleterious to IPv6
>> adoption? as before.
>
> It is again a balance of address policy vs routing table conservation. I personally wouldn't have a problem with letting an LIR keep their PI space when they get their PA space. How does this working group feel about that?
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 22:02:49 +0200
> From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing
>         IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
> To: Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no>
> Cc: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>,       "address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>         Working Group" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>, Gert D?ring
>         <gert at space.net>
> Message-ID:
>         <CAD77+gQcWNcNdyKdwkTR1O3jdePZ-fabno9ncU6oWctgzxkE5A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:
>> If that PI assignment is already in use, a requirement to renumber and
>> return it might be a showstopper for getting PA space. Renumbering is
>> *hard* - it is *a lot* of work.
>
> As the guy who renumbered a /17 in a few months: Yes. Oh my $deity... yes.
>
>
>> So while I don't think 2014-04 is harmful in any way and I don't have
>> any objections to it, I do find it quite puzzling that it does not try
>> to fix the actual problem in ripe-589 section 7.1 - which, if 2014-04
>> were to pass, would remain just as ?downright deleterious to IPv6
>> adoption? as before.
>
> I would also support such a proposal or maybe even help spearhead it. ...Tore?
>
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 22:07:08 +0200
> From: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing
>         IPv6    Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
> To: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist at gmail.com>,    Tore Anderson
>         <tore at fud.no>, Gert D?ring <gert at space.net>
> Cc: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net Working Group"
>         <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <005C7559-A48E-4F8C-B858-BB18A58F7909 at steffann.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Hi,
>
>>> So while I don't think 2014-04 is harmful in any way and I don't have
>>> any objections to it, I do find it quite puzzling that it does not try
>>> to fix the actual problem in ripe-589 section 7.1 - which, if 2014-04
>>> were to pass, would remain just as ?downright deleterious to IPv6
>>> adoption? as before.
>>
>> I would also support such a proposal or maybe even help spearhead it. ...Tore?
>
> /me feels an agenda item for section Y coming up...
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 07:13:54 +0200
> From: Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing
>         IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
> To: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
> Cc: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net Working Group"
>         <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>, Gert D?ring <gert at space.net>
> Message-ID: <53686F92.5060400 at fud.no>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> * Sander Steffann
>
>> It is again a balance of address policy vs routing table
>> conservation. I personally wouldn't have a problem with letting an
>> LIR keep their PI space when they get their PA space. How does this
>> working group feel about that?
>
> Me neither. I think is fine to *encourage* newly formed LIRs to return
> IPv6 PI when they're requesting PA, but *requiring* it is a tad too
> tough. If the end result is that the newly formed LIRs cannot provision
> their End Users with IPv6 addresses because they cannot realistically
> get PA space, we're doing something wrong...
>
> That said, this isn't my itch to scratch really (I already have all the
> IPv6 I need)...so if you want to do a proposal, Richard, go right ahead!
> I promised myself 2014 would be a proposal-free year...and besides I
> won't be going to Warszawa either. :-/
>
> Tore
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 07:22:49 +0100 (WEST)
> From: Carlos Friacas <cfriacas at fccn.pt>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing
>         IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
> To: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
> Cc: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net Working Group"
>         <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.11.1405060721480.11281 at gauntlet.id.fccn.pt>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
>
> On Mon, 5 May 2014, Sander Steffann wrote:
>
> (...)
>>
>> It is again a balance of address policy vs routing table conservation. I personally wouldn't have a problem with letting an LIR keep their PI space when they get their PA space. How does this working group feel about that?
>
> Should be allowed to keep the PI, i.e. avoiding renumbering at all cost.
>
> Cheers,
> Carlos
>
>> Cheers,
>> Sander
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 11:48:49 +0200
> From: "Erik Bais" <ebais at a2b-internet.com>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Policy Proposal (Relaxing
>         IPv6    Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
> To: "'Sander Steffann'" <sander at steffann.nl>, "'Tore Anderson'"
>         <tore at fud.no>
> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net, 'Gert D?ring' <gert at space.net>
> Message-ID: <005a01cf6910$67958880$36c09980$@a2b-internet.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="Windows-1252"
>
> Hi,
>
>> > Right. But the summary of the proposal identifies the *actual* problem
> here:
>> >
>> >  ?In order to qualify [for IPv6 PA], they need to request an IPv6
>> >  allocation and subsequently return their existing PI assignment
>> >  (per ripe-589 section 7.1)?
>
>> Yep, seen that.
>
> Why should an LIR have to return his PI space if they have valid reasons for
> its use and are already using it ?
>
> I agree with Tore that to encourage a LIR to return a v6 PI assignments if
> they can, but if it is in use and active, I would feel strongly against a
> requirement to return the space and get a PA block.
>
> Having a v6 allocation doesn't guarantee the usage of v6 ... and if someone
> went through the trouble in the past to actually get a v6 PI assignment and
> later decides to become a LIR, they get a penalty and are required to return
> the space !!
>
> Besides that and the issue that a v6 PI assignment doesn't 'qualify' for the
> final /8 v4 allocation list, are in my opinion the 2 items that should be
> fixed.
>
> As a suggestion to the authors for the policy text:
>
> Skip the distinction between v6 PA or PI in the policy text and rephrase it
> to :
>
> b. New policy text
> 5.1 Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs
> [...]
> Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received v6
> resources from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC.
>
> And include a change to ripe-589 section 7.1 (
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-589#IPv6_PI_Assignments )
>
> Original text:
> 7.1 IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs
> LIRs can qualify for an IPv6 PI assignment for parts of their own
> infrastructure that are not used for customer end sites. Where an LIR has an
> IPv6 allocation, the LIR must demonstrate the unique routing requirements
> for the PI assignment.
>
> The LIR must return the IPv6 PI assignment within a period of six months if
> the original criteria on which the assignment was based are no longer valid.
>
> If an organisation already received a PI assignment before becoming an LIR,
> the PI assignment should be returned upon receiving an IPv6 allocation if
> there are no specific routing requirements to justify both.
>
> Updated text:
> 7.1 IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs
> LIRs can qualify for an IPv6 PI assignment for parts of their own
> infrastructure that are not used for customer end sites. Where an LIR has an
> IPv6 allocation, the LIR must demonstrate the unique routing requirements
> for the PI assignment.
>
> The LIR must return the IPv6 PI assignment within a period of six months if
> the original criteria on which the assignment was based are no longer valid.
>
> If an organisation already received a PI assignment before becoming an LIR,
> the PI assignment should be returned upon receiving an IPv6 allocation, if
> the original criteria on which the assignment was based are no longer valid.
>
> Regards,
> Erik Bais
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 10
> *************************************************



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above.
It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use
of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the
intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and
e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this
message and including the text of the transmission received.