Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit:
Hi,
[...]
>> What is your real intent with all this? Simplification does not seem
>> to be it.
> For full disclosure, if you still doubt about it: My intent is only doing
> work whenever I need it helps, for the good
Am 20.05.2018 um 11:57 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
> Once more ... this is not the point. I mention it as one possible choice
> (change fees or not, change contract or not).
I looks like there's not much positive feedback to your »proposal«: I suggest
to bury it ...
>
Dear Peers,
I think it’s clear this will never reach a consensus. What are we still
discussing here ? There’s nothing left to discuss any more. It’s a waste of
valuable time.
And for the record, I’m strongly against the proposal, the current system works.
Had a lovely Sunday evening everyone !
echa: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 18:17
Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
On 2018 May 19 (Sat) at 18:11:39 +0200 (+0200), Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
:Am 19.05.2018 um 12:07 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
;address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Am 19.05.2018 um 12:07 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
> My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI,
Alternative facts? The title says "to remove IPv6 PI".
[Jordi] You
om /32 and sign LIR contract).
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org>
Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 14:21
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] propos
On 2018 May 19 (Sat) at 18:11:39 +0200 (+0200), Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
:Am 19.05.2018 um 12:07 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
:> My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI,
:
:Alternative facts? The title says "to remove IPv6 PI".
:
:> As I explained already, the intent is not to
Am 19.05.2018 um 12:07 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
> My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI,
Alternative facts? The title says "to remove IPv6 PI".
> As I explained already, the intent is not to increase the end-user fees so
> they pay the same as an LIR, but to have some
ocations even if SUB-ALLOCATED is not
90% assigned.
rgds,
Sascha Luck
???-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de "Sascha Luck
[ml]" <a...@c4inet.net>
Fecha: mi??rcoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 18:55
Para: Gert Doering <g...@space.n
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
But, I think it is clear now that the main reason (1), was not
really an obstacle for the IPv6 deployment, and in fact, where we
are lacking "more" IPv6 deployment is in enterprises, so it didn't
worked to resolve that problem.
You're
g...@space.net>
Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 12:17
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Hi,
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:07:50PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINE
Hi,
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:07:50PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg wrote:
> My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI, it is only to make a *single*
> category of LIRs for both that accommodate real IPv6 addressing
> size needs, because PI and PA are the same, it is just an
;jpr...@betterbe.com>
Fecha: viernes, 18 de mayo de 2018, 12:30
Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
I think we introduced IPv6 PI because we needed to be able to give
address space to entities that only need internal add
I think we introduced IPv6 PI because we needed to be able to give
address space to entities that only need internal address space, want to
be multi-homed, but would never allocate to 3rd party networks because
they would only use it internally for their own business (for example a
SAAS provider
>> > Responding below, in-line.
>>
>> *PLEASE* use some meaningful way to quote and answer inline so a
>> reader can distinguish between the original text and your answer. You
>> current mode of answering is making this really hard.
>
> I will use [Jordi] to make it clear.
<address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
> > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
> >
> >> Hi Jordi,
> >
> >> As I understand it, the
icy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit:
Hi,
> PI and PA are artificial names for the same thing.
They are not.
Please, enumerate what are the differences
Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit:
Hi,
> PI and PA are artificial names for the same thing.
They are not.
> There is only one type of Global Unicast Addresses in IPv6.
Not true.
PI and PA are sliced from different pools which may have (I didn't evaluate
ard.
> > De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de
> Martin Huněk <hun...@gmail.com>
> > Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 17:28
> > Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> <jordi.pa...@consul
I think this is an interesting proposal which requires some through
analysis.
>From a pure policy point of view I do not think a distinction between PI
and PA makes sense in a post-depletion world.
Following this reasoning it does not make sense in v6 either.
BUT
I do understand the concern
Wrote a huge post. Tried to remove all the impolite phrases from it
then. Didn't manage to do that. Removed the whole post. So, in one sentence,
I am against this.
16.05.18 15:52, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg пише:
> Hi all,
>
> For those that haven't been in the meeting, the
, 16 de mayo de 2018, 22:06
Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Am 16.05.2018 um 14:52 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
> […]
> I believe we have several problems that my p
Moin,
am 16.05.2018 um 18:55 schrieb Sascha Luck [ml]:
> This removes the need for ISPs or hosters to be LIRs where they
> neither want to nor have the necessary skills or the time.
>
> The outcome would most likely be a lot fewer LIRs with a lot
> higher fees but they can of course recoup these
Am 16.05.2018 um 14:52 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
> […]
> I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix.
> […]
> Thoughts?
To put it in a nutshell, I think you throw out the baby with bath water here:
you're not simply "merging the requirements
ARTINEZ
<jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
in-line
Regards,
Martin
Dne středa 16. května 2018 17:45:01 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg napsal(a):
> Below, in-line.
&g
e at any time during the rest of the week.
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Max
Tulyev <presid...@ukraine.su>
Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 19:22
Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
As
Wrote a huge post. Tried to remove all the impolite phrases from it
then. Didn't manage to do that. Removed the whole post. So, in one sentence,
I am against this.
16.05.18 15:52, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg пише:
> Hi all,
>
> For those that haven't been in the meeting, the
Hi Gert,
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 06:35:32PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
In other words, decouple the "LIR" function from the "ISP"
function.
Well, that seems to be what Jordi's idea seems to be about - but it
is neither easy nor straightforward how to get there. We've tried
a few years ago,
Hi,
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 05:29:32PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> rather than making policy successively more dense, technically
> prescriptive and complicated, is it not way past time to abolish
> the PA/PI distinction altogether?
> In other words, decouple the "LIR" function from the
en nombre de
> Martin Huněk <hun...@gmail.com>
> Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 17:28
> Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
>
>>
ARTINEZ
<jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Hi Jordi,
As I understand it, the PA is only for a LIR and PI is also for sponsored
organization. Also the PI is solely for the end user infrastructure and and PA
can be further allocated or assig
1
> Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
>
> Hi Jordi,
>
> I must say that I'm strongly against this proposal.
>
> Reasons
Hi,
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 04:50:02PM +0200, Patrick Velder wrote:
> I am against the proposal, but I agree to #4 (from the IPv4 view, too).
Fee structure is unfortunately something we cannot fix (or even work on)
here in the APWG. Fees are decided by the AGM - and the "one size fits
all" fee
Hi,
I am against the proposal, but I agree to #4 (from the IPv4 view, too).
Regards
Patrick
On 16.05.2018 14:52, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
Hi all,
For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at
Hi,
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 02:52:57PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
address-policy-wg wrote:
> 2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the
> community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they
> actually use end-user space (PI policies) to
gt;
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Hi Jordi,
I must say that I'm strongly against this proposal.
Reasons:
- Situation between IPv4 and IPv6 is quite different - reasons for
canceling IPv4 PI was simply not enough space
- Not ever
Hi Jordi,
I must say that I'm strongly against this proposal.
Reasons:
- Situation between IPv4 and IPv6 is quite different - reasons for canceling
IPv4 PI was simply not enough space
- Not everyone in the business had to be a LIR and some large non ISP
organization could be legitimate user of
37 matches
Mail list logo
