[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN

While I'm in a nasty mood anyway, let me make the most of it...

Would you people prune the god damn quotes already!!!!!!

On 14-apr-2006, at 12:43, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:


Hi Jordi,

Please see inline.

At 12:20 14/04/2006 +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

Hi Jim,
Not sure if I got your question correctly, but let me try to explain my 
view.

I understand the position of the people that say they need PI today,
especially because not having it may be hurting the advancement of the IPv6 
deployment.
However, I want to balance this with the medium-long term implications created in the routing table and with the time needed to build and deploy a better technical solution (or several) which is accepted by the community.
So my proposal basically is about having PI now everywhere (once ARIN adopt it, is unfair not having it in other regions), but those PI allocations for multihoming should be temporary and those address blocks returned to the 
RIRs some time (lets say 3 years) after the new technical solution is
declared as a valid one.
That will never happen i suppose... once there is PI space out there, then it will be there forever.... the discussion in 2 a 3 years will be the same as now because Network Management staff just don't like to renumber their infrastructures (and that is for valid reasons), and this is even more valid when speaking about the very large enterprise organizations. If PI is accepted now, then i suppose it will be out there 
forever and ever.
When PI space is out there then i wonder who of these organizations would actually still be interested in a shim solution and further development may result in an academical 
effort.

Brgds,
G/
At this way, on the long-run, we will not have routing table implications, but we allow now the people that want to move ahead only if they have a 
multihoming solution doing so.

This 3-years time for getting a multihoming network back to the new
technical solution (once adopted) is enough time, I think (it could be 
changed to 5 years if needed, or whatever), so nobody today see the
temporarily of the proposal as a showstopper to go for it now.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>
> Responder a: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> Fecha: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 03:11:58 -0400
> Para: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> Conversación: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
> Asunto: RE: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
>
> Jordi, why this will work as is for now?
> /jim
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
>> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
>> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 5:28 PM
>> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
>>
>> Hi Thomas, all,
>>
>> During my fly-back from Montreal, I've worked in a proposal
>> and I'm talking to folks in each RIR/region, with the idea to
>> submit it to all them as a kind of (if possible), global policy.
>>
>> The idea is based on the comments that I did at the mic
>> during the ARIN meeting.
>>
>> I will try to get this submitted next Monday/Tuesday and get
>> ready for a formal presentation during the next RIPE meeting
>> at Istanbul (following week).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> De: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
>>> Responder a: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
>>> Fecha: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:14:54 -0400
>>> Para: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com>
>>> CC: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
>>> Asunto: Re: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
>>>
>>>> What would be the prefix allocation per organization?
>>>
>>> /48, though can be larger in some cases. Watch for the revised
>>> proposal that gets last called for details.
>>>
>>>> (Me being in Europe and not attending ARIN sessions)
>>>
>>> Note: none of the other RIRs have such a policy in place
>> today, though
>>> I wouldn't be surprised if they now followup with proposals
>> of their
>>> own (though someone has to do it).
>>>
>>>> Has there been study on the # of organizations going for
>> this and if
>>>> the impact will be more significant then more's law on technology 
>>>> enhancement?
>>>
>>> Mostly just hand waving, with a lot of "IPv4 hasn't melted today," 
>>> "looking at the impact of the current IPv4 policies, the
>> number of PI
>>> assignments is only on the 100s per year", and "we can update the
>>> policy if things get problematical".
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************
>> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>>
>> Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
>> Slides available at:
>> http://www.ipv6-es.com
>>
>> This electronic message contains information which may be
>> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be
>> for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not
>> the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
>> distribution or use of the contents of this information,
>> including attached files, is prohibited.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. 




--
I've written another book! http://www.runningipv6.net/