2008-02 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR

PDP Number: 2008-02
Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR

Dear Colleagues,

The Review Period for the proposal 2008-02 has been extended
until 16 May 2008.

With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a
one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR
that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings.


You can find the full proposal at:

    http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html



We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send
your comments
to <address-policy-wgripe.net>.

Regards,

Filiz Yilmaz
RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

> With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run
a 
> one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every
LIR 
> that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings.
>     http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html


I'm concerned with the way that this policy is worded.
First, it
has the same impact as saying that any LIR with IPv4
resources is
exempt from 5.1.1 c) in RIPE 421 which says that you must
have a plan 
to sub-allocate IPv6 addresses in order to justify an IPv6
block. This
has
the effect of raising the barrier to entry for organizations
which do no
currently have IPv4 allocations, i.e. the criteria for new
entrants is
stricter 
than for current RIPE members.

Second, some of the organizations receiving these /32 blocks
would
be able to justify much larger blocks. We got a /22 last
year for 
instance. It seems to me that it would be nicer to offer
LIRs an IPv6
block rather than automatically allocating one. If an LIR
might be
able to justify a larger allocation than /32, then the offer
could
explain how to do that. This issue here is one of
communication. If
you simply allocate an IPv6 block but do not clearly
communicate this
to the LIR (including acknowledgement from the LIR) then you
are simply
making meaningless entries in a database. The LIR will never
use the
block and in the next two or three years they will submit
another
application, or else swamp the RIPE help desk with queries
about
this strange database object that they have discovered.

I am generally in favour of this but I think it needs to be
fair to
all organizations by removing the condition in 5.1.1 c) in
RIPE 421
and it needs to begin by engaging the LIR to ensure that
they understand
that a /32 is about to be allocated, and they are ready to
accept the
allocation. The process of allocation is much more than
making a
database
entry. Communication with the LIR and acknowledgement of the
LIR are
necessary in order to allocate an address block.

--Michael Dillon

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:

> PDP Number: 2008-02
> Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> The Review Period for the proposal 2008-02 has been
extended until 16 May 2008.
>
> With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run
a one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR
that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings.
>
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
>
>    http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html

>
>
> We encourage you to review this policy proposal and
send your comments
> to <address-policy-wgripe.net>.
>
> Regards,
>
> Filiz Yilmaz
> RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
>
>

I'm also against this proposal.

LIRs should be able to request their v6 address space
according to their 
needs. If some (i mean the majority) still didn't do it,
they should be 
able to do it in the future based on real numbers, and thus
getting the 
proper IPv6 allocation size (which might not be a /32...).

Would this policy, if accepted, be OK with the IANA and the
other RIRs?
What would happen if a RIR community tried to pull a
last+preemptive 
IPv*4* allocation for all its LIRs? 

Seriously... i'm convinced the original idea behind this
policy had a good 
intention, but let's focus our efforts in explaining why do
we need an 
IPv6 Internet, and in really doing it!
Enforcement policies (like this one) will not cut it.


Best Regards,

------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Carlos Friac,as                                           
See:
Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN)                     
www.gigapix.pt
FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional     
www.ipv6.eu
Av. do Brasil, n.101                                      
www.6diss.org
1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, Europe
Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167                   
www.fccn.pt
------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
           The end is near........ see http://ipv4.potaroo.net
"Internet is just routes (241744/992), naming
(billions) and... people!"

    Esta mensagem foi enviada de: / This message was sent
from:
 		 2001:690:2080:8004:250:daff:fe3b:2830

Aviso de Confidencialidade
Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu
destinatario, podendo
conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta'
expressamente
vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado
indevidamente esta
mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto
por esta
via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu
conteudo
de imediato.

Warning
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee.
It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If
this
message has been received due to any error, please notify us
via
e-mail or by telephone +351 218440100 and delete it
immediately.

> With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run
a one-time
> operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that
does not have
> any existing IPv6 holdings.
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html


this proposal is silly and restrictive.  we should give a
/24 away to
all people that pay their electric bill.  </sarcasm>

is anyone else here old enough to remember the A and B
giveaways?  does
this seem at all familiar?  and for those, they at least had
to ask.

what do the advocates think giving something to someone that
does not
want it will accomplish?  is it not a like throwing yourself
at the
ground and missing?

randy

> With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run
a one-time
> operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that
does not have any
> existing IPv6 holdings.

Under current IPv6 allocation policies, I understand that
the allocation 
process goes like this:

lir: please give me a /32; i intend to assign IPv6
addresses.

ripe ncc: here you go.

In this light, 2008-02 is a very odd solution to a problem
which - as far 
as I can tell - doesn't exist.  But I might be tempted to
support it if the 
RIPE NCC were to hand out a free packet of Smarties with
every /32.

Nick

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 02:20:26PM +0100, Nick Hilliard
wrote:
> But I might be tempted to support it if the 
> RIPE NCC were to hand out a free packet of Smarties
with every /32.

In the strive for balanced and fair policies, this would
need to include
that all existing IPv6 allocation holders get a packet of
Smarties as well.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 
110584

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v.
Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A.
Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG
Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

> In the strive for balanced and fair policies, this
would need to include
> that all existing IPv6 allocation holders get a packet
of Smarties as well.

this is back asswards.  everyone who buys a packet of
smarties should be
given a /32

randy

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:28:39PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > In the strive for balanced and fair policies, this
would need to include
> > that all existing IPv6 allocation holders get a
packet of Smarties as well.
> 
> this is back asswards.  everyone who buys a packet of
smarties should be
> given a /32

Do we really need to allocate a /37 per smartie?

But in all seriousness, I don't like this proposal as it
stands.

-- 
Tim

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:28:39PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > In the strive for balanced and fair policies, this
would need to include
> > that all existing IPv6 allocation holders get a
packet of Smarties as well.
> 
> this is back asswards.  everyone who buys a packet of
smarties should be
> given a /32
> 
> randy

	there will still be too much v6 space left...  a v6 /32 for

	every mars bar!

On 28 apr 2008, at 15:20, Nick Hilliard wrote:

>> With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will
run a one-time
>> operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR
that does not have  
>> any
>> existing IPv6 holdings.
>
> Under current IPv6 allocation policies, I understand
that the  
> allocation process goes like this:
>
> lir: please give me a /32; i intend to assign IPv6
addresses.
>
> ripe ncc: here you go.
>
> In this light, 2008-02 is a very odd solution to a
problem which -  
> as far as I can tell - doesn't exist.  But I might be
tempted to  
> support it if the RIPE NCC were to hand out a free
packet of  
> Smarties with every /32.


Following up on last week`s meeting, it seems that the
current idea is  
to just tell the LIR's to go to ripe and request IPv6, which
isn't a  
real policy change and more of a marketing effort.

If this is the case, I don't think this belongs in this WG
and  
probably should be moved to NCC-services-wg, any thoughts on
that one ?

Groet,

MarcoH

> If this is the case, I don't think this belongs in this
WG 
> and probably should be moved to NCC-services-wg, any
thoughts 
> on that one ?

I agree. 2008-02 should be withdrawn because it is not a
policy change
and further discussion of promotional activities should go
to either the
IPv6 or the NCC Services WGs.

--Michael Dillon

Hi Michael,

> I agree. 2008-02 should be withdrawn because it is not
a policy change

The proposer has already requested us to withdraw 2008-01
and 2008-02.

Sander Steffann
APWG co-chair