[address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 14

Hi

Thanks guys for joining my idea, the reason why I asked in the first place is why don't we have a equal IPv4 working group then, if address technical issue alone worth for a wg, then for sure we are facing more issue with v4 than v6( in which practically still quite low usage for today's internet). And, what IPv6 wg has to do IPv6 transfer policy--it is not technical thing I believe.

That said, I don't want to kill IPv6 wg, but just hoping v6 will have the normal treatment just like what we do with v4.

Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy? So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well.

> On 2014年11月12日, at 上午11:00, 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. 2014-04,    2014-12 and wording of the IPv6 address policy
>      (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN)
>   2. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing    lists]
>      (Aleksi Suhonen)
>   3. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
>      (Wilhelm Boeddinghaus)
>   4. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] (lir at elisa.fi)
>   5. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing    lists] (Jim Reid)
>   6. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing    lists] (Jim Reid)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:03:38 +0100
> From: "Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN" <ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net>
> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04,    2014-12 and wording of the IPv6
>    address policy
> To: Erik Bais <ebais at a2b-internet.com>, ipv6-wg at ripe.net
> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Message-ID:
>    <1415714618.1677409.189621005.1C579680 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain
> 
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014, at 15:28, Erik Bais wrote:
>> 
>> Could you provide insight in what you want to review ? 
>> 
>> That particular section is more in line with the policy proposal 2014-04 and
>> not the proposal to allow IPv6 transfers. 
> 
> My point relates to section 7.1 of the current IPv6 address policy. It
> lets people understand that if someone got an IPv6 PI some time ago
> (before becoming LIR), they will have issues getting anything else
> IPv6-related (and possibly IPv4-related) unless they renumber (or play
> administrative games with the NCC or have really unique requirements -
> which is always subject to debate). Just as a reminder, re-numbering
> live networks may be much more complicated than it seems on paper (like
> in "try to get the address of a business-critical system changed when
> more than 50% of higher management doesn't know much about IT").
> 
> Paragraph 2 should be re-worded : from "must do this IF that" to "IF
> that THEN must do this". Makes things more readable.
> Paragraph 3 should be probably relaxed (?? removed entirely ??).
> Probably re-ordering paragraphs (1, 3, 2) would also make things easier
> to read and understand.
> 
> Relation to 2014-12 : Not much. It updates concerned text (without much
> relation to proposal's subject either). May probably clarify some cases
> of LIR consolidation.
> Relation to 2014-04 : Half redundant with 2014-04 (which will probably
> go live before we sort out this issue).
> 
>> No problem to discuss it, but we need to change the subject in that case
>> in order to keep this discussion clean.  
> 
> Done :)
> 
> --
> Radu
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:32:02 +0200
> From: Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012 at ssd.axu.tm>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy
>    mailing    lists]
> To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <54630CF2.10203 at ssd.axu.tm>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> Hello,
> 
>> On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote:
>> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need
>> two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal
>> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6.
> 
> In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about 
> address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for 
> IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support this 
> proposal.
> 
> -- 
>    +358 44 9756548 / http://www.trex.fi/
>    Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy
> 
>    You say "potato", I say "closest-exit."
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:26:07 +0100
> From: Wilhelm Boeddinghaus <wilhelm at boeddinghaus.de>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy
>    mailing lists]
> To: Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012 at ssd.axu.tm>,
>    "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <546327AF.9020503 at boeddinghaus.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
>> Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen:
>> Hello,
>> 
>>> On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote:
>>> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need
>>> two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal
>>> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6.
>> 
>> In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about 
>> address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list 
>> for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support 
>> this proposal.
>> 
> Hi,
> 
> I do not support this proposal. Renaming the WG to "resource-policy" 
> would be ok, but this is not the important point. The "address-policy" 
> WG deals with how we give IP  adresses to members and non members, it is 
> about contracts and fair distribution of resources in a fairly large region.
> 
> In the IPv6 working group we deal with the technical aspects of IPv6, 
> just have a look at the presentation Jen Linkovagave in London. Or have 
> a look into the drafts of the IPv6 working groups at the IETF. There is 
> still a lot of research going on. And many organisations just start with 
> IPv6. Learning from others is very valuable. These aspects would not be 
> addressed in a "resource-policy" WG.
> 
> I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the 
> policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But 
> please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We 
> will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much 
> experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Wilhelm
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20141112/a5b75db1/attachment-0001.html 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:28:56 +0200 (EET)
> From: lir at elisa.fi
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy
>    mailing lists]
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1411121226550.15314 at troi.sci.fi>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
>> 
>> From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net
>> [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Wilhelm
>> Boeddinghaus
>> Sent: 12. marraskuuta 2014 11:26
>> To: Aleksi Suhonen; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing
>> lists]
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen:
>> 
>>      Hello,
>> 
>>      On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote:
>> 
>>      Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we
>>      need
>>      two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as
>>      normal
>>      IP address is the day we really in a world of v6.
>> 
>> 
>>      In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only
>>      about address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate
>>      mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In
>>      essence, I support this proposal.
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I do not support this proposal. Renaming the WG to "resource-policy" would
>> be ok, but this is not the important point. The "address-policy" WG deals
>> with how we give IP? adresses to members and non members, it is about
>> contracts and fair distribution of resources in a fairly large region.
>> 
>> In the IPv6 working group we deal with the technical aspects of IPv6, just
>> have a look at the presentation Jen Linkova gave in London. Or have a look
>> into the drafts of the IPv6 working groups at the IETF. There is still a lot
>> of research going on. And many organisations just start with IPv6. Learning
>> from others is very valuable. These aspects would not be addressed in a
>> "resource-policy" WG.
>> 
>> I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the
>> policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But please
>> let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We will need
>> that for the next 10 years until we all have as much experience with IPv6 as
>> we have with IPv4 today.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Wilhelm
>> 
>> 
>> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I fully agree with Wilhelm.
> 
> Rgds,
> 
> Ray
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:53:12 +0000
> From: Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy
>    mailing    lists]
> To: Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012 at ssd.axu.tm>
> Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <CFB4DFB4-AD8D-4EA1-AFA5-D5FFC12B17F9 at rfc1035.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
>> On 12 Nov 2014, at 07:32, Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012 at ssd.axu.tm> wrote:
>> 
>> In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness.
> 
> If that was true, it would mean the IPv6 WG should be shut down because it had nothing to do.
> 
> Please present the evidence for your claim and for killing the IPv6 WG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:57:12 +0000
> From: Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy
>    mailing    lists]
> To: Wilhelm Boeddinghaus <wilhelm at boeddinghaus.de>
> Cc: Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012 at ssd.axu.tm>,    RIPE Address Policy WG
>    <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <84C41506-F403-4763-A284-1E9AD9607076 at rfc1035.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> 
>> On 12 Nov 2014, at 09:26, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus <wilhelm at boeddinghaus.de> wrote:
>> 
>> I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today.
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 14
> *************************************************