I already said this before, but "... in running such networks vis [via] the RIR policy making fora." is wrong.
When discussing about addressing models, the right expertise is in IETF. I'm not saying the RIRs don't have that expertise, and in fact many folks with the right expertise is working in both sides (IETF and RIRs). The point is that this looks like a model for addressing, with the aim of standardizing it, and the most correct WGs is probably v6ops (operation of IPv6 networks), or even 6man, which the cooperation of IoT WGs. An example of this is obviously RFC4291. The RIRs policies don't work in addressing models or plans, in fact, the actual IPv6 policy say: "The middle bits of an address indicate the subnet ID. This field may often be inefficiently utilised, but the operational benefits of a consistent width subnet field were deemed to be outweigh the drawbacks. This is a variable length field, determined by each LIR's local assignment policy." In other RIRs this is even more clear, they often have a sentence like: "The exact size of the assignment is an operational decision for the LIR or ISP to make." Of course, I'm not saying that we can't change our policies, but I've the feeling that the RIRs communities will not reach consensus in something as this document, unless the IETF also support it. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: ipv6-wg <[email protected]> en nombre de Antonio Prado via ipv6-wg <[email protected]> Responder a: Antonio Prado <[email protected]> Fecha: sábado, 26 de mayo de 2018, 12:28 Para: Jim Reid <[email protected]> CC: <[email protected]> Asunto: Re: [ipv6-wg] comments on Y.Pv6RefModel On 5/25/18 3:54 PM, Jim Reid wrote: > Antonio, while it’s important to talk about the technical aspects of Y.IPv6RefModel -- please tell the WG what you think about it! hi, i with pleasure accept your kind invite. it's clear to everybody now that RIPE's community opinions on Y.IPv6RefModel are not positive, to be fair. anyway, about the procedural side: ITU commissioned a research to Mandat International, UN consultant, to follow what their resolution 101 decided in 2014. the SG20 in 2018 recommended on the draft that: "The cost/benefit analyses of these approaches and addressing schemes will need careful consideration. That work should be developed in consultation with those who have operational expertise in running such networks vis [via] the RIR policy making fora." RIPE NCC, as a sector member, will send our comments to SG20 (Marco Hogewoning in marseille said). somehow here we are. about the model proposed in the draft, i read two quotes from RFC 6540 and an IAB statement (page 11): "all networking standards assume the use of IPv6, and be written so they do not require IPv4". i think we all agree with it, but at this point i cannot understand why the draft insists on IPv4 by saying (page 15): "To enable mapping between and consistency between IPv4 and IPv6 subnet addressing plans, a dual strategy is proposed, with part of the IPv6 subnet addressing plan designed to map corresponding IPv4 addresses, with the possibility to extend the IPv6 subnet addressing plan and benefit from its scalability where this constraint is not required." to me, this is an enormous contradiction of principle that makes the whole work vanish at once. finally, i agree with all other tech arguments brought up in this mailing list earlier. thank you -- antonio ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
