Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Marco Schmidt wrote on 9.7.2015: We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 7 August 2015. we support the proposal, therefore +1 from us. The interpretation of the NCC in their impact analysis strikes a good balance between too much liberalness, which might lead to undue waste of address space, and the constraints of the current policy. We are hopeful that the NCC has found a measureable and impartial way to identify the justifiable size of large allocations. The new policy would allow new address plan structuring arguments to be considered by the NCC - and this is important. Regards, John Collins LIR ch.swissgov
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Hi Marco, I would also like to respond to the point that both you and Matthew made about the RIPE NCC taking a more liberal approach in our interpretation. There is a balance to be struck here, between allowing for corner cases, and the requirements being clearly listed and adhered to. Our understanding in the impact analysis is based both on our previous experience with IPv6 requests and our interpretation of the policy text. If the community would like us to take a more liberal approach, we will need some additional guidelines on how to evaluate the requests in the proposed policy text. Perhaps this is where the difficulty lies... A liberal approach generally presupposes the absence of rules and/or precise definition and so trying to put specifics into policy to promote such an approach may be counter-productive. On that basis I think I'd prefer not to see the proposed policy text containing even more detail than it does now. I guess this is where the Impact Analysis, and its publication, plays such a key role - it helps form a common understanding between RIPE NCC and the community as to how the policy can/will be implemented without requiring the policy text to be so specific. Taking this a step further it can also allow for a pragmatic approach to be taken where necessary and appropriate i.e. it captures the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter. Mathew
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Gert, Apologies I missed this bit in my first response: (Just to point out the obvious - from the early days of /35s I have been fighting for more liberal IPv6 allocation policies, but it still needs to be done with a solid technical understanding, and not with I like large numbers, so get me a /15 please! - this is the balance we need to find, or otherwise we'll find us faster than expected in the oops, fp 001 is gone! land) I fully agree with this but would ask that you are careful not to inadvertently imply that all large requests are necessarily a result of technical ignorance and/or disregard for what is still a finite shared resource. Some will be I am sure but there will be many that are the result of considerable effort being put into identifying requirements and establishing a sensible and robust addressing strategy to satisfy them. I think we should be careful that we don't focus too much on constraining the former but end up having an even bigger negative impact on the latter. As you say; it really is all about balance. Mathew
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Hi Gert, I have seen my share of network plans made totally without understanding for bits, hierarchy or actual *networking*, resulting in oh, for these 500 sites, we definitely need a /24! (and oh, for all the electronic passports for 100 million citizens, we must have a /19!) - and thus it is good practice to have someone more experienced in addressing review the plan and see whether it makes sense. I think that is the general point that Silvia is making... It is very difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a one-size-fits all approach to assessing requests for address space, particularly when trying to cater for organisations that don't quite fit the usual mould. Are approaches such as 'up to one extra bit per hierarchical level or geographical segment' compatible with this premise and are they even necessary? I know from personal experience of assessing hundreds of requests for IPv4 address ranges over the years within my own organisation that there is no substitute for experience when it comes to performing the task effectively. Whilst rules of thumb are useful I think that attempts to 'proceduralise' the task with more specifics can end up being unhelpful and, in any event, are not necessary prerequisites for consistency. In my view what is more important is general oversight and capturing of experience garnered over multiple requests and it is noted from the IA that /29 requests will continue to follow the escalated evaluation process which ought to help provide this. To be clear about where I stand; I am still satisfied that the revised policy and its proposed implementation will meet the needs of the UK MOD however I would nevertheless support a more 'liberal' approach to the consideration of the varying requirements of other organisations who will undoubtedly have different - yet equally valid - priorities and needs. Regards, Mathew
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Hi Gert Sure, I fully agree with what you are saying, that is actually what I meant with use common sense. So we add to that and with the necessary technical understanding. The reason that I made the statement from this perspective is that in my consultings I have seen a lot more oft he restricted thinking (like when a global organization says: we got a /48 and I guess we will find a way to live with that, it is more than we ever had :-) So let's go for balance :-) Silvia -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@space.net] Gesendet: Freitag, 24. Juli 2015 13:51 An: Silvia Hagen Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) Hi, On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:31:54AM +, Silvia Hagen wrote: There is a widely adopted rule that all address conservation mechanisms should be removed from IPv6 address plans. You can't do that on a RIR level - if the IPRAs were to hand out a /16 for everyone that comes with a nice diagram, we'd actually run out of IPv6 soon. Of course a /16 is excaggerating a bit - but I have seen my share of network plans made totally without understanding for bits, hierarchy or actual *networking*, resulting in oh, for these 500 sites, we definitely need a /24! (and oh, for all the electronic passports for 100 million citizens, we must have a /19!) - and thus it is good practice to have someone more experienced in addressing review the plan and see whether it makes sense. (Just to point out the obvious - from the early days of /35s I have been fighting for more liberal IPv6 allocation policies, but it still needs to be done with a solid technical understanding, and not with I like large numbers, so get me a /15 please! - this is the balance we need to find, or otherwise we'll find us faster than expected in the oops, fp 001 is gone! land) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Hi, On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02:31PM +, Silvia Hagen wrote: So let's go for balance :-) All for it! Plus good documentation and good understanding of networking Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpmbq4UmJKvr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02:31PM +, Silvia Hagen wrote: So let's go for balance :-) I agree. I think a sensible balance may be that allocations /29 are reviewed (as they are now, AIUI) by the IPRA managers and/or the Board. There is a danger, in my opinion, that the IPv6 allocation/assignment process is infested with IPv4 thinking which will result in SPs employing workarounds of the sort that made IPv4 such a pain to deal with. That said, I've done a bit of v6 IPAM recently and the numbers one deals with are staggering. ;p rgds, Sascha Luck
[address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) - “subsequent allocations”
Hi community, hi Tore, the LIR-team of de.government supports this current policy proposal “2015-03 New Draft Document”. +1 In addition we also made up our mind about the resulting inconsistency to the criteria for subsequent allocations. Therefore we plan to propose a “follow-up” proposal which tries to align the subsequent allocation criteria in case of a successful 2015-03 PDP. Kind regards, Annette Suedmeyer LIR de.government - Bundesverwaltungsamt Bundesstelle für Informationstechnik (BIT) BIT I 5 Besucheradresse: Barbarastr.1 in 50735 Köln (Riehl) Servicezeiten: Montag bis Freitag 08:00 Uhr bis 16:30 Uhr Postadresse: Bundesverwaltungsamt, Barbarastraße 1, 50728 Köln Telefon: +49 22899 358 3551 E-Mail: annette.suedme...@bva.bund.de Internet: www.bundesverwaltungsamt.dehttp://www.bundesverwaltungsamt.de/ www.bit.bund.dehttp://www.bit.bund.de/
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) - “subsequent allocations”
Hello Annette, the LIR-team of de.government supports this current policy proposal “2015-03 New Draft Document”. +1 In addition we also made up our mind about the resulting inconsistency to the criteria for subsequent allocations. Therefore we plan to propose a “follow-up” proposal which tries to align the subsequent allocation criteria in case of a successful 2015-03 PDP. Ok, we'll see how 2015-03 goes and contact you once that has been concluded (either withdrawn or accepted). If you have any questions feel free to contact the chairs and RIPE NCC PDO at apwg-cha...@ripe.net, or to follow up on this list of course. Cheers, Sander
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Tore, You should ask that IPRA should re-read 2015-03. If your customer is allocated a /29, the new allocation criteria currently proposed in 2015-03 can simply *not* be used to resize it to a /28. This is, as I've mentioned earlier, due to the fact that 2015-03 only changes the *initial* allocation criteria. If already allocated a /29, your customer would need to request a *subsequent* allocation in order to obtain a /28, but as the subsequent allocation criteria is not changed by 2015-03, it won't be of any help as far as your customer's concerned. The 2015-03 proposal might still help/apply if you view the situation as being that the customer has not *outgrown* their /29 allocation (and hence needs consideration under the subsequent allocation policy) but rather that they have effectively *ordered the wrong size* in which case they could return the /29 and get a /28 in return under the new initial allocation criteria. If the /28 is able to encompass the first then this obviously carries the benefit of not requiring any renumbering. This is just speculation though and so, for clarity of understanding, it would be good to hear how RIPE NCC would see things operating in such a scenario... Mathew
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Hi, On 09.07.2015 14:19, Marco Schmidt wrote: We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 7 August 2015. tl;dr: I support the proposal in the current state. I do not really think this will help the routing table growth as outlined in section B of the impact analysis though. The organisations that are likely to request address space under the proposed rules will probably announce the received address space with some sort of de-aggregation. But I do think this proposal can remove constraints some organisation currently have when deploying (or trying to deploy) IPv6. g André
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Hi Jens, * Opteamax GmbH as far as I am informed each V6- allocation made by RIPE had always a reserved space after the actual allocation which allows extending upto /27 ... so returning seems not to be necassary ... at least not as long as /27 is sufficient. Actually, the reservation is for a /29. That's precisely the reason why the 6RD proposal allowed for extension up to that exact size: «Legacy /32 allocations were allocated with a /29 of “reserved for future expansion” space in mind and can very easily be expanded within that /29. As such, a move from /32 to /29 does not impact negatively RIPE NCC, nor will it lead to discrimination among existing allocations. As the reserved space is already present and would not be allocated to anyone else other than the holder of the /32 already allocated, it seems reasonable to go ahead and let LIRs use the full /29 of space if they need it.» -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2011-04 In hindsight, it is a bit of a shame they didn't reserve a /28 instead. That way, 2011-04 could have moved the boundary with a full nibble. Oh well. Tore
[address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Hi +1 to 2015-03 proposal. -- Shahin Gharghi
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
* Marco Schmidt You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 I'm generally positive to this proposal, but the impact analysis made me realise that it only applies to *initial* allocations. That causes the new allocation criteria to only benefit any late adopters who do not currently hold an IPv6 allocation. They will get an unfair advantage that the early adopters who are currently holding a [presumably too small] allocation, as the early adopters cannot re-apply for a appropriately sized block under the new allocation criteria. I'll note that both authors' LIRs (uk.mod and de.kaufland) already hold an IPv6 /29 allocation each...so assuming the proposal was intended to help scratch an itch of their own, so to speak, perhaps this is simply an omission? Tore
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Hi Mathew, I'll note that both authors' LIRs (uk.mod and de.kaufland) already hold an IPv6 /29 allocation each...so assuming the proposal was intended to help scratch an itch of their own, so to speak, perhaps this is simply an omission? It was our (uk.mod's) expectation/assumption that it would be possible to return an existing allocation (in an 'unused/as-new' state) and apply for another under the new criteria. That is correct. If you return your allocation you can then do a new first-allocation request. With the current text it won't be possible to grow an existing allocation though, as that would use the rules for additional allocations. Cheers, Sander
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Hi Tore, -Original Message- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Tore Anderson I'll note that both authors' LIRs (uk.mod and de.kaufland) already hold an IPv6 /29 allocation each...so assuming the proposal was intended to help scratch an itch of their own, so to speak, perhaps this is simply an omission? It was our (uk.mod's) expectation/assumption that it would be possible to return an existing allocation (in an 'unused/as-new' state) and apply for another under the new criteria. Regards, Mathew
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Hi, as far as I am informed each V6- allocation made by RIPE had always a reserved space after the actual allocation which allows extending upto /27 ... so returning seems not to be necassary ... at least not as long as /27 is sufficient. BR Jens Am 10. Juli 2015 19:02:43 MESZ, schrieb Tore Anderson t...@fud.no: * Mathew Newton It was our (uk.mod's) expectation/assumption that it would be possible to return an existing allocation (in an 'unused/as-new' state) and apply for another under the new criteria. Hi Matthew, If your /29 remains unused I suppose I was wrong to consider you an early adopter of IPv6... ;-) I'm thinking more of an organisation that, e.g., received an /29 (as that was what the policy permitted at the time) and actually started using it as best they could. After the passage of 2015-03 they'd like to get a /28-or-larger under the new allocation criteria, but un-deploying what they currently have in production in order to do so might not be operationally feasible. Their situation is then very similar to the one that 2015-02 «Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation» sought to fix. Just to be clear, I'm not objecting to the proposal as it currently stands; I just thought the case was worth while mentioning. If you'd rather let whomever ends up in that situation to also be the one to fix it (through a 2015-02-ish proposal), then that's fair enough as far as I'm concerned. Tore !DSPAM:637,559ffad4149491050911710! Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: j...@opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
* Mathew Newton This policy proposal is indeed not intended to cater for those situations and is focussed only on initial allocations. It might sound selfish [...] Not at all. We all scratch our own itches. Been there, done that. :-) In any case, I don't see much of a downside with this proposal. The only thing one could conceivably be concerned about is excessive consumption of IPv6 due to LIRs grabbing larger allocations than they have a need for, but considering that a /29 is way more than enough for almost everyone and that the IA states that «LIRs would need to provide comprehensive documentation» in order to make use of this policy I don't see why anyone would bother trying to abusing it. On the other hand I would love to see more IPv6 happening in the governments in the region, so if this policy can help make that happen, I'm all for it. So without further ado: +1 Tore
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Hi, On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:11:11PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: So without further ado: +1 Haha, clear and easy for the chairs to understand :-) (But a useful discussion about additional allocations. I've been listening, and indeed it might be a useful excercise to come back there after we agree on what the initial criteria should be...) gert -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpKnMzY47weZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
