From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Tue Jul 12 18:15:17 2005 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:15:17 +0000 Subject: [ppml] tossed over the wall... Message-ID: <20050712221517.GC12667@vacation.karoshi.com.> /56 anyone? http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt --bill From memsvcs at arin.net Wed Jul 13 08:46:44 2005 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:46:44 -0400 Subject: [ppml] RIPE IPv4 HD-Ratio last call Message-ID: <42D50D34.7020105@arin.net> This post is to inform you of a development outside the ARIN region. An IPv4 HD-Ratio proposal has moved to last call in the RIPE region. It proposes using the HD-Ratio to measure IPv4 usage. The last call ends on July 15, 2005. The discussion is on the RIPE Address Policy Working Group mailing list. The last call post was sent by Hans Petter Holen on 7/1/2005 and the subject of the post is "last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD ratio policy proposal". The post is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2005/msg00448.html Anyone with an interest in Internet numbering issues is welcome to observe, participate and contribute to the RIPE Address Policy Working Group. Subscription information is available at: http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From don.wilder at gmail.com Wed Jul 13 10:04:33 2005 From: don.wilder at gmail.com (Home Business Services, Inc.) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:04:33 -0400 Subject: [ppml] tossed over the wall... In-Reply-To: <20050712221517.GC12667@vacation.karoshi.com.> References: <20050712221517.GC12667@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: On 7/12/05, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > /56 anyone? > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt I wonder if there isn't a typo on page 3... - home user - expected to have a small number of subnets, e.g., less than 10 - a /56 assignment - small business/organization - one having a small number of networks, e.g., less than 100 - a /56 assignment - large business/organization - an organization having more than 100 subnets - a /48. One would think that there was a logical progression... /56, /52, /48 I for one would love a /56 for my home business. Don -- ------------------------------------ Home Business Services, Inc. Senior Unix Administrator Don at HBS-Inc.ws ------------------------------------ From noc at leasenet.net Wed Jul 13 12:09:48 2005 From: noc at leasenet.net (LeaseNet, Inc. - Network Operations) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:09:48 -0500 Subject: [ppml] PPML Digest, Vol 1, Issue 1 References: Message-ID: <003401c587c5$4aab3b10$3502a8c0@alicia> in case you want to read these links. me ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:00 AM Subject: PPML Digest, Vol 1, Issue 1 > Send PPML mailing list submissions to > ppml at arin.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ppml-request at arin.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ppml-owner at arin.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of PPML digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. tossed over the wall... (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) > 2. RIPE IPv4 HD-Ratio last call (Member Services) > 3. Re: tossed over the wall... (Home Business Services, Inc.) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:15:17 +0000 > From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com > Subject: [ppml] tossed over the wall... > To: ppml at arin.net > Message-ID: <20050712221517.GC12667 at vacation.karoshi.com.> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > /56 anyone? > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt > > --bill > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:46:44 -0400 > From: Member Services > Subject: [ppml] RIPE IPv4 HD-Ratio last call > To: ppml at arin.net > Message-ID: <42D50D34.7020105 at arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > This post is to inform you of a development outside the ARIN region. > > An IPv4 HD-Ratio proposal has moved to last call in the RIPE region. It > proposes using the HD-Ratio to measure IPv4 usage. The last call ends > on July 15, 2005. The discussion is on the RIPE Address Policy Working > Group mailing list. > > The last call post was sent by Hans Petter Holen on 7/1/2005 and the > subject of the post is "last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD ratio > policy proposal". The post is available at: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2005/msg00448.html > > Anyone with an interest in Internet numbering issues is welcome to > observe, participate and contribute to the RIPE Address Policy Working > Group. Subscription information is available at: > http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > > Regards, > > Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:04:33 -0400 > From: "Home Business Services, Inc." > Subject: Re: [ppml] tossed over the wall... > To: "bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com" > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 7/12/05, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > /56 anyone? > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt > > I wonder if there isn't a typo on page 3... > > - home user - expected to have a small number of subnets, e.g., > less than 10 - a /56 assignment > > - small business/organization - one having a small number of > networks, e.g., less than 100 - a /56 assignment > > - large business/organization - an organization having more than > 100 subnets - a /48. > > One would think that there was a logical progression... /56, /52, /48 > > I for one would love a /56 for my home business. > > Don > -- > ------------------------------------ > Home Business Services, Inc. > Senior Unix Administrator > Don at HBS-Inc.ws > ------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml > > > End of PPML Digest, Vol 1, Issue 1 > ********************************** > > From narten at us.ibm.com Thu Jul 14 03:19:35 2005 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:19:35 +0200 Subject: [ppml] tossed over the wall... In-Reply-To: Message from "Home Business Services, Inc." of "Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:04:33 EDT." Message-ID: <200507140719.j6E7JZJC011150@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> "Home Business Services, Inc." writes: > On 7/12/05, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > /56 anyone? > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt > I wonder if there isn't a typo on page 3... > - home user - expected to have a small number of subnets, e.g., > less than 10 - a /56 assignment > - small business/organization - one having a small number of > networks, e.g., less than 100 - a /56 assignment > - large business/organization - an organization having more than > 100 subnets - a /48. > One would think that there was a logical progression... /56, /52, > /48 In an earlier version, I had toyed with having a /60 for home sites, and a /56 for small businesses, etc. The above wording stems from that. I'm just not sure that having more than three sizes (i..e, /48, /56, /64) is necessary. It may just be diminishing returns... Moving from /48 to /56 for a large percentage of the allocations would reap such a lot of benefit (2 orders of magnitude) that I don't know that trying for more is really necessary. > I for one would love a /56 for my home business. Indeed, that's 256 subnets. That's really a lot! Thomas From narten at us.ibm.com Thu Jul 14 04:14:43 2005 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:14:43 +0200 Subject: [ppml] FWD: [GLOBAL-V6] draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00.txt Message-ID: <200507140814.j6E8EhHB014630@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> FYI. The global-v6 list appears to still be active, and perhaps we can revive the list to talk about things that really cross the entire RIR community. Thomas ------- Forwarded Message From: Thomas Narten To: global-v6 at lists.apnic.net Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:40:34 +0200 Subject: [GLOBAL-V6] draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00.txt I think/hope the global-v6 is still in operation, so this is a bit of a test... I've written a document that attempts to give background and describe the bigger picture w.r.t. IPv6 address space management and the various issues that are now being discussed (e.g., hd ratio, /48 boundary, etc.). This document is intended to provide information and explain the broader landscape, rather than propose specific changes, etc. I'd welcome discussion/feedback on it, and this list seems as good a place as any. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00.txt Likewise, there is another document that will be discussed at the upcoming Paris IETF meeting. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt That document will be discussed in the IPv6 WG: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipv6-charter.html mailing list: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 Finally, significant discussion on the general topic has already place (and continues) in the ARIN and RIPE regions. Folk may want to review/follow some of the discussions that have taken place there: http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml (I believe the pointers to the ARIN/RIPE discussions have been sent to APNIC lists, but I don't believe a lot of discussion has taken place there - yet). Thomas _______________________________________________ global-v6 mailing list global-v6 at lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 ------- End of Forwarded Message From david.conrad at nominum.com Thu Jul 14 10:21:09 2005 From: david.conrad at nominum.com (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 07:21:09 -0700 Subject: [ppml] tossed over the wall... In-Reply-To: <200507140719.j6E7JZJC011150@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <200507140719.j6E7JZJC011150@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: Thomas, I have to admit some confusion. It took quite a bit of effort to rid the routing systems of fixed network boundaries in IPv4 (and, in fact, there are still vestiges here and there). Is there some reason that IPv6 makes dealing with variable length network masks more complicated than IPv4? Thanks, -drc On Jul 14, 2005, at 12:19 AM, Thomas Narten wrote: > I'm just not sure that having more than three sizes (i..e, /48, /56, > /64) is necessary. It may just be diminishing returns... Moving from > /48 to /56 for a large percentage of the allocations would reap such a > lot of benefit (2 orders of magnitude) that I don't know that trying > for more is really necessary. From narten at us.ibm.com Thu Jul 14 10:24:04 2005 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:24:04 +0200 Subject: [ppml] tossed over the wall... In-Reply-To: Message from David Conrad of "Thu, 14 Jul 2005 07:21:09 PDT." Message-ID: <200507141424.j6EEO4XZ003013@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> > I have to admit some confusion. It took quite a bit of effort to rid > the routing systems of fixed network boundaries in IPv4 (and, in > fact, there are still vestiges here and there). Is there some reason > that IPv6 makes dealing with variable length network masks more > complicated than IPv4? For the left-most 64 address bits, no. As in absolutely not. My comment is in the context of policy, not about implementations/operations. Thomas > Thanks, > -drc > On Jul 14, 2005, at 12:19 AM, Thomas Narten wrote: > > I'm just not sure that having more than three sizes (i..e, /48, /56, > > /64) is necessary. It may just be diminishing returns... Moving from > > /48 to /56 for a large percentage of the allocations would reap such a > > lot of benefit (2 orders of magnitude) that I don't know that trying > > for more is really necessary. From randy at psg.com Thu Jul 14 10:27:59 2005 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 04:27:59 -1000 Subject: [ppml] tossed over the wall... References: <200507140719.j6E7JZJC011150@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <17110.30319.53246.594574@roam.psg.com> > I'm just not sure that having more than three sizes (i..e, /48, /56, > /64) is necessary shades of cidrd. sheesh! what's the fixation on fixed boundaries? randy From randy at psg.com Thu Jul 14 10:47:37 2005 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 04:47:37 -1000 Subject: [ppml] tossed over the wall... References: <200507141424.j6EEO4XZ003013@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <17110.31497.77480.413584@roam.psg.com> > My comment is in the context of policy, not about > implementations/operations. i thought the ivtf was gonna stay out of policy. is there not enough work to get the kinks out of the engineering? randy From paul at vix.com Thu Jul 14 11:03:14 2005 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:03:14 +0000 Subject: [ppml] tossed over the wall... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 14 Jul 2005 07:21:09 MST." References: <200507140719.j6E7JZJC011150@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20050714150314.81BD713925@sa.vix.com> # I have to admit some confusion. It took quite a bit of effort to rid the # routing systems of fixed network boundaries in IPv4 (and, in fact, there are # still vestiges here and there). Is there some reason that IPv6 makes # dealing with variable length network masks more complicated than IPv4? it's just easier to market/deploy something that lands on a : or . boundary. my preference would be to break that mold, once and for all, and deliberately choose something like a /55 or /57 just to force folks to THINK. From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Thu Jul 14 11:23:38 2005 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:23:38 +0000 Subject: [ppml] tossed over the wall... In-Reply-To: <20050714150314.81BD713925@sa.vix.com> References: <200507140719.j6E7JZJC011150@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <20050714150314.81BD713925@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: <20050714152338.GF21978@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 03:03:14PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote: > # I have to admit some confusion. It took quite a bit of effort to rid the > # routing systems of fixed network boundaries in IPv4 (and, in fact, there are > # still vestiges here and there). Is there some reason that IPv6 makes > # dealing with variable length network masks more complicated than IPv4? > > it's just easier to market/deploy something that lands on a : or . boundary. > my preference would be to break that mold, once and for all, and deliberately > choose something like a /55 or /57 just to force folks to THINK. been there, done that... the old /35 delegations were pushed back to /32's... because it was "too hard" --bill From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Thu Jul 14 12:32:24 2005 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:32:24 -0400 Subject: [ppml] tossed over the wall... In-Reply-To: <20050714152338.GF21978@vacation.karoshi.com.> References: <200507140719.j6E7JZJC011150@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <20050714150314.81BD713925@sa.vix.com> <20050714152338.GF21978@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: At 15:23 +0000 7/14/05, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: >On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 03:03:14PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote: >> Someone else wrote: >> # I have to admit some confusion. It took quite a bit of effort to rid the >> # routing systems of fixed network boundaries in IPv4 (and, in fact, there >> # are still vestiges here and there). Is there some reason that IPv6 makes >> # dealing with variable length network masks more complicated than IPv4? >> >> it's just easier to market/deploy something that lands on a : or . boundary. >> my preference would be to break that mold, once and for all, and >>deliberately >> choose something like a /55 or /57 just to force folks to THINK. > > been there, done that... the old /35 delegations were pushed back > to /32's... because it was "too hard" Why make folks THINK when we have computers? But, seriously... Off-pretty-boundary allocations shouldn't be a challenge for automatons like routers. "Shouldn't" because we hope that the vendor engineers can think around these things. However, when it comes to the maintenance of the database of allocations (whether its the ARIN registry of some other list of where addresses are allocated or assigned), as well as setting up the DNS reverse map zones, using the pretty-boundaries makes it easier to manage. If there is a reason to dole out /57's instead of /56's, then the reason ought to be worth the effort of having to know that "if the first hex digit is 8-F and there are four of them, it's in apartment a, otherwise it's in the house over there." I think that its reasonable for the IETF to recommend what is needed - as in how much space will be sufficient for a normal household - but it isn't policy. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying. From alh-ietf at tndh.net Thu Jul 14 13:30:31 2005 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:30:31 -0700 Subject: [ppml] tossed over the wall... In-Reply-To: <200507140719.j6E7JZJC011150@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20050714173048.9CDF4145106@smtp2.arin.net> An I would argue that /64 never makes any sense. The claims about a PDA only needing one assume that it will never be dropped into a cradle of a vehicle suddenly enabling various subnets (freight environmental or inventory monitor, dispatch service) to reach out or be reached with independent access controls. A /64 puts the carrier in the position of telling the customer they can't build anything more than a single lan, where a /60 removes that limitation with effectively the same impact on space utilization. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of > Thomas Narten > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:20 AM > To: Home Business Services, Inc. > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ppml] tossed over the wall... > > "Home Business Services, Inc." writes: > > > On 7/12/05, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com > wrote: > > > /56 anyone? > > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis- > 48boundary-00.txt > > > I wonder if there isn't a typo on page 3... > > > - home user - expected to have a small number of subnets, e.g., > > less than 10 - a /56 assignment > > > - small business/organization - one having a small number of > > networks, e.g., less than 100 - a /56 assignment > > > - large business/organization - an organization having more than > > 100 subnets - a /48. > > > One would think that there was a logical progression... /56, /52, > > /48 > > In an earlier version, I had toyed with having a /60 for home sites, > and a /56 for small businesses, etc. The above wording stems from > that. > > I'm just not sure that having more than three sizes (i..e, /48, /56, > /64) is necessary. It may just be diminishing returns... Moving from > /48 to /56 for a large percentage of the allocations would reap such a > lot of benefit (2 orders of magnitude) that I don't know that trying > for more is really necessary. > > > I for one would love a /56 for my home business. > > Indeed, that's 256 subnets. That's really a lot! > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml From memsvcs at arin.net Mon Jul 25 16:09:40 2005 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:09:40 -0400 Subject: [ppml] Deadline for Policy Proposals - August 27 Message-ID: <42E54704.5010003@arin.net> The ARIN XVI Public Policy Meeting will take place October 26-27, 2005, in Los Angeles, California. New policy proposals must be submitted by 23:59 EST, August 27, 2005, in order to be considered by the ARIN Advisory Council for possible inclusion on the ARIN XVI agenda. This is in accordance with ARIN's Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, which indicates that proposed policies must be submitted at least 60 days prior to the meeting. Those who wish to propose new ARIN number resource policies or modifications to existing ARIN number resource policies must submit a Policy Proposal Template. The template must be sent via e-mail to policy at arin.net. The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/iprep.html The Policy Proposal Template can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep_template.html Regards, Member Services Department American Registry for Internet Numbers =================================================================== E-mail memsvcs at arin.net FTP ftp.arin.net WHOIS whois.arin.net Website http://www.arin.net =================================================================== From bolgiano at ieee.org Sun Jul 31 23:58:37 2005 From: bolgiano at ieee.org (D. Ridgely Bolgiano) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:58:37 -0400 Subject: [ppml] subscribe bolgiano@usa.net Message-ID: <42ED9DED.7090306@ieee.org> subscribe bolgiano at usa.net