[ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 29.08.2012 11:05, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 03:06:08AM +0200, Michael Markstaller
> wrote:
>> Just my 2ct: not any University or worse religous campaign
>> should block a /8 or /16 without having to state HERE&NOW why and
>> for what they really need&use it. They need exactly 1 IP for
>> every 65536 concurrently active student to NAT and 1 for each
>> public service at most, lets put a /22 for infra on top and then
>> we're fine..
> 
> This is not how the old Internet used to work, and it is not how it
>  works today - nobody is forced to use NAT by the RIRs, and that's
> how it must be (*and* it has nothing to do with the question of ERX
> space governance whatsoever).

Ok, this was a intentionally a little provocative.
I - admittetly - don't know much about the internals and
policys/proposals of InterNIC or RIPE NCC and what this WG is really
about. And learned much today from the various posts.

>> We have to do either I guess, at least we do, according to 
>> RIPE-policys. So we're playing with different cards here, legacy 
>> holders are being asked "what might be a nice proposal they
>> like", I'm not asked what "might be nice for me"
> 
> ERX space has not been given out under RIPE policies, so they do
> not apply.  Period.  There is no law, legal contract, or anything
> else that would make RIPE policies automagically apply to ERX space
> (and even *then*, there would not be any RIPE policy forcing a user
> of IP address space to use NAT if they do not want to).

Well I remember ther (was?) or is some policy or draft suggesting this
at least for 2G/3G networks which not all providers do and, well which
is IMHO nonsense in context of IPv4 really running out to give each
Gadget in my pocket a public IP..

> It would solve nothing.  If people insist on cementing their IPv4
> world for a few more years, they would have *more* stuff to move to
> IPv6 in the long run - nothing solved.
Agreed, not solve but shift the "problem" - though, I'm no enemy of
v6, just to tell you my real-world view of IPv6: No single customer
was ever interested in, no single hit on the servers we ran a while
back around  v6-Day, no single user on the xDSL we provide wanted to
use it; the only result were new problems nobody pays for.
Don't take this as a rant please, I know about your efforts in many
ways, the problems are sourced by low usage/training etc. But it's a
real big chicken-egg-problem and as a very small provider in business
my primary job is to get a working infrastructure and happy customers
that pay money; none of them ever wanted to pay a single Euro for v6
(maybe because you have all of them ;))

On 29.08.2012 12:21, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> Now, the policy proposal raised here is not an *address space*
> policy proposal, but an *ncc service* policy proposal - which
> governs the way the NCC runs their, uh, services.  And I think this
> is a reasonable approach - find something that the ERX holder
> community and the RIPE NCC is happy with, walk it through an open
> consensus process, and then nobody can argue that the RIPE NCC is
> going out and
bullying/blackmailing
> ERX holders over their addresses...

Thats a key point, I didnt really get so far..


On 29.08.2012 21:58, Carsten Schiefner wrote:> Hi Nick,
> 
> On 29.08.2012 19:33, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> On 29/08/2012 17:09, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>>> in addition to ideas stated here to take away our legacy IP
>>> allocations and give us /22s and force us to use NAT and 
>>> reengineer our 10,000 node university networks
>> 
>> No idea where this idea came from.  No-one has ever suggested
>> this or even remotely implied it.  Quite the opposite in fact.
> 
> may I suggest you re-read Michael Markstaller's posting of Wed, 29
> Aug 2012 03:06:08 +0200? It's archived at:
> 
> 
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2012-August/001738.html

It was me, yes, and sorry for the rant. It wasn't based on any known
policy or proposal but just on my Opinion and then 2ct..

Since I know now, again the proposal discussed (quoted again) is not
an *address space* policy proposal, but an *ncc service* policy
proposal. Ok..

But then I have another 2ct if this is relevant under this topic:
I found no details in the proposals how the deal with "selling v4
addresses"(*) which will IMHO happen soon when v4 is fully exhausted.
*I don't vote for this* but one or another way, it might be "cheaper"
to "buy" v4 space then migrate networks, so it will happen.
If I get with limited knowledge things right now, this might be a
topic that could be of relevance in future.

*) This was discussed quite a while back, maybe on another WG for a
short time but AFAIR didn't make it to a conclusion.

best regards

Michael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlA+f8MACgkQaWRHV2kMuAKuKwCfR1xibpJJvd6UugoehCbRLy+9
6zIAn0PMuVXgYWM0uLN4CnzCK5eaxq0L
=xMKo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----