[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fwd: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Size Reduction
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:37:17 -0400 (EDT)
"Steve Bertrand" <steveb@eagle.ca> wrote:
>
> > IMNSHO Brian Dickson's case doesn't hold water. If ISPs are using
<snip>
> This thread started with someone proposing a 'policy' as to how an ISP
> slice up their address space to assign to clients. One of the first
> few sentences of said policy proposal was thus:
>
> "The following guidelines may be useful (but they are only guidelines)"
>
You're right, guidelines aren't hard and fast rules, but they are
supposed to be "if you don't know any better, or don't have a specific
constraint that you're aware of, then if you follow these statements,
the results should cater to the majority of cases, and you won't have
any significant and unexpected problems." In other words, they're
supposed to be realistic and considered recommendations, applyable to
most and the majority of common situations.
These specific guidelines, as either guidelines or rules, in the
context of IPv6's dramatically larger address space, compared to
IPv4's, are rediculous.
My concern about suggested guidelines like these are that people who
are stuck in an IPv4 "address space is precious" mindset will grab onto
them and then make IPv6 significantly harder and more costly to manage and
deploy than it was designed to be. Letting that happen would be doing a great
disservice to the future users of the IPv6 Internet.
> Now, I will be happy when someone can explain how this should not be
> drafted into a Best Common Practice or other similar document instead
> of a proposal for policy.
>
> Two issues I have here (the way I see it):
>
> - guidelines, no matter how tightly written can not be enforced as
> policy, as they are just that...guidelines
>
> - if a policy is 'enforced' on me, I am going to squeeze the
> 'guidelines' to the limit as best I see fit
>
> Is there not too much gray area when composing a draft policy that
> even includes the word guidelines?
>
> An ISP no matter what their size will be directed by the path of least
> resistance if there are only 'guidelines' in place. This is a recipe
> for disaster.
>
> What works for one will not work for all, and the term 'guidelines' in
> a policy proposal should sidetrack this entire conversation to
> something worthy of a policy proposal that we can perhaps adapt before
> more people turn to IPv6.
>
> DNS infrastructure, the assignment of blocks to operate said
> infrastructure for .tld's and the persecution of persons for
> mentioning they should not be mentioned in a draft proposal do nothing
> for the people who are counting on the more experienced people here,
> and the policy they help create. (I'm speaking for myself, as someone
> who follows ARIN PPML to the best of my ability, with the resources I
> have).
>
> 'Guidelines' should not be introduced at all into how an ISP should
> assign blocks of IP's to their clients via policy. If policy changes,
> it should be documented in a way that is clear, concise and followed
> as closely by ARIN as possible to the letter.
>
> Put guidelines into a BCP. Put enforcible rules into policy. No matter
> what, if even a policy is too convoluted, too ambiguous or hard to
> work with, it won't be followed anyway.
>
> Steve
>