[ppml] PPML Digest, Vol 24, Issue 27 (Auto Reply)

I will be on vacation from Friday 6/15/2007 to MTuesday 6/19/2007. If
you need immediate assistance please contact our NOC or 24 hr dispatch.

Thank You

>>> ppml 06/15/07 15:13 >>>

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. Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)
   2. Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)
   3. Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft (Azinger, Marla)
   4. Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft (Owen DeLong)
   5. Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft (Kevin Kargel)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:14:43 +0000
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
To: <ipv6 at ietf.org>
Cc: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>,
	"address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Message-ID: <C2985D63.19E23C%jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="ISO-8859-1"

If you doubt about folks stating anything, then you should read *before*
minutes of meetings. I'm now off-line in a plane, so can't point you to
a
specific URL, but this has been said at least in one ARIN meeting.

It has been clear across all this discussion in several exploders, that
there are both opinions, people that want ULA-C and people that don't.
What
you need to be smart here is to realize that those than don't want ULA-C
have no any objective reason to oppose to it, because implementing ULA-C
has
no negative impact in others. While opposing to it has negative impact
to
all: Folks will use global space (PA or PI) for doing the function of
ULA-C
an this is a waste, yes a small waste but a waste.

It seems to me irresponsible and unbalanced to do or try things like
changing the HD-ratio or the default assignment size to end-sites
because it
is a waste, and then oppose to those that want to have ULA-C, not
impacting
in others and avoiding one further small saving in global unicast space.

I'm not trying to convince anyone about supporting ULA-C, because it
seems
an impossible mission at least for a few, but at least, don't object to
it
if having it doesn't force you in any further implications, which is the
case.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org>
> Organizaci?n: Unfix
> Responder a: <ipv6-bounces at ietf.org>
> Fecha: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:00:11 +0100
> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> CC: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>, <ipv6 at ietf.org>,
> "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
> 
> [cc'ing RIPE address policy + ARIN PPML where the discussion on this
> happened, I have not seen any 'operators' who have said the below, if
> there are they are there and can thus raise their voices because they
> will see this message; removed the silly spam scoring subject...]
> 
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they
could
>> use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal
>> infrastructure's.
> 
> I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator
> who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their
> argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does
> not work that way.
> 
> Real network operators, especially involved in the RIPE or other
RIR's,
> have more than enough address space from their PA allocations that
they
> can easily receive and they very well know how to use a /48 from that
> for internal infrastructure as everybody does this. The IPv6 PA
policies
> even describe that a /48 can be used per POP of the owner of the PA
block.
> 
> Also in the ARIN region any organization can get a /48 PI block for
> about $100/year, as such these organizations won't be needing this
> address space either as they can easily take a /64 out of that for
those
> needs. Firewalling is the key here.
> 
> 
>> I think the policy proposal that I sent to several regions includes
text and
>> links to other documents that can clarify this perspective.
>> 
>> For example in RIPE NCC:
>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html
> 
> That is your proposal indeed. No "Operator" has stood behind this and
> various people from various organizations have clearly asked you and
the
> RIPE NCC to *freeze* this proposal till at least the IETF has worked
out.
> 
> Anybody needing a "globally unique" block can get either PA or PI
space.
> ULA-C as such is useless.
> 
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6 at ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.





------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:03:25 +0000
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
To: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>
Cc: ipv6 at ietf.org, address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Message-ID: <C29868CD.19E247%jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="ISO-8859-1"

Hi Marla,

In fact, when I started to work on this, it was because I realized about
the
possibility to use ULA-C as the space for the microallocations and
talking
with different folks they said that it will be possible with ULA-C, but
not
ULA.

I also talked with people from the AC and they considered the point (I
was
told) to use ULA-C for the microallocations when ULA-C is available.

So my view is that probably the microallocations policy should not
expire,
but instead, be modified to make usage of the ULA-C space instead of
global
unicast.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com>
> Responder a: <marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com>
> Fecha: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:31:29 -0400
> Para: Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org>, <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> CC: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>, <ipv6 at ietf.org>,
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Conversaci?n: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
> Asunto: RE: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
> 
> I think a point here that needs to be looked at is this:
> 
> If ULA-C is addressed by IETF and then in turn we end up with RIR's
> responsible for handing out ULA-C blocks, then those existing policy's
such as
> ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal Infastructure should
be
> expired and no longer an active policy.
> 
> And there are different flavors to the debate of why ULA-C would be
better
> than such policy as ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal
> Infastructure.  Ie Standardization, conservation ect...
> 
> Cheers!
> Marla Azinger
> Frontier Communications
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Jeroen Massar
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:00 AM
> To: jordi.palet at consulintel.es
> Cc: ARIN People Posting Mailing List; ipv6 at ietf.org;
> address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
> 
> 
> [cc'ing RIPE address policy + ARIN PPML where the discussion on this
> happened, I have not seen any 'operators' who have said the below, if
> there are they are there and can thus raise their voices because they
> will see this message; removed the silly spam scoring subject...]
> 
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they
could
>> use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal
>> infrastructure's.
> 
> I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator
> who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their
> argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does
> not work that way.
> 
> Real network operators, especially involved in the RIPE or other
RIR's,
> have more than enough address space from their PA allocations that
they
> can easily receive and they very well know how to use a /48 from that
> for internal infrastructure as everybody does this. The IPv6 PA
policies
> even describe that a /48 can be used per POP of the owner of the PA
block.
> 
> Also in the ARIN region any organization can get a /48 PI block for
> about $100/year, as such these organizations won't be needing this
> address space either as they can easily take a /64 out of that for
those
> needs. Firewalling is the key here.
> 
> 
>> I think the policy proposal that I sent to several regions includes
text and
>> links to other documents that can clarify this perspective.
>> 
>> For example in RIPE NCC:
>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html
> 
> That is your proposal indeed. No "Operator" has stood behind this and
> various people from various organizations have clearly asked you and
the
> RIPE NCC to *freeze* this proposal till at least the IETF has worked
out.
> 
> Anybody needing a "globally unique" block can get either PA or PI
space.
> ULA-C as such is useless.
> 
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
> 




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.





------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:14:31 -0400
From: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com>
Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
To: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>,	"ARIN People Posting Mailing
List"
	<ppml at arin.net>
Cc: ipv6 at ietf.org, address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Message-ID:
	<454810F09B5AA04E9D78D13A5C39028A023EFACB at nyrofcs2ke2k01.corp.pvt>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

Jordi-  We are saying the same thing.  Just how you get there is
different.  

It is true, we could either modify or eliminate the current ARIN policy
to work in unison with what might be a finsished RFC on ULA-C.  I just
believe that sometimes it is easier to start with a fresh policy.  In
this case, I think it would be less confusing to expire the current
policy and replace it with a new one that is more fitting as opposed to
trying to modify the current one. A modification could quickly confuse
anyone who has not been following all of the ULA emails and
conversations.

I suppose we can figure this out when we get to that bridge.

Cheers!
Marla Azinger
Frontier Communications
ARIN AC

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:03 AM
To: ARIN People Posting Mailing List
Cc: ipv6 at ietf.org; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft


Hi Marla,

In fact, when I started to work on this, it was because I realized about
the
possibility to use ULA-C as the space for the microallocations and
talking
with different folks they said that it will be possible with ULA-C, but
not
ULA.

I also talked with people from the AC and they considered the point (I
was
told) to use ULA-C for the microallocations when ULA-C is available.

So my view is that probably the microallocations policy should not
expire,
but instead, be modified to make usage of the ULA-C space instead of
global
unicast.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com>
> Responder a: <marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com>
> Fecha: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:31:29 -0400
> Para: Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org>, <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> CC: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>, <ipv6 at ietf.org>,
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Conversaci?n: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
> Asunto: RE: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
> 
> I think a point here that needs to be looked at is this:
> 
> If ULA-C is addressed by IETF and then in turn we end up with RIR's
> responsible for handing out ULA-C blocks, then those existing policy's
such as
> ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal Infastructure should
be
> expired and no longer an active policy.
> 
> And there are different flavors to the debate of why ULA-C would be
better
> than such policy as ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal
> Infastructure.  Ie Standardization, conservation ect...
> 
> Cheers!
> Marla Azinger
> Frontier Communications
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Jeroen Massar
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:00 AM
> To: jordi.palet at consulintel.es
> Cc: ARIN People Posting Mailing List; ipv6 at ietf.org;
> address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
> 
> 
> [cc'ing RIPE address policy + ARIN PPML where the discussion on this
> happened, I have not seen any 'operators' who have said the below, if
> there are they are there and can thus raise their voices because they
> will see this message; removed the silly spam scoring subject...]
> 
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they
could
>> use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal
>> infrastructure's.
> 
> I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator
> who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their
> argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does
> not work that way.
> 
> Real network operators, especially involved in the RIPE or other
RIR's,
> have more than enough address space from their PA allocations that
they
> can easily receive and they very well know how to use a /48 from that
> for internal infrastructure as everybody does this. The IPv6 PA
policies
> even describe that a /48 can be used per POP of the owner of the PA
block.
> 
> Also in the ARIN region any organization can get a /48 PI block for
> about $100/year, as such these organizations won't be needing this
> address space either as they can easily take a /64 out of that for
those
> needs. Firewalling is the key here.
> 
> 
>> I think the policy proposal that I sent to several regions includes
text and
>> links to other documents that can clarify this perspective.
>> 
>> For example in RIPE NCC:
>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html
> 
> That is your proposal indeed. No "Operator" has stood behind this and
> various people from various organizations have clearly asked you and
the
> RIPE NCC to *freeze* this proposal till at least the IETF has worked
out.
> 
> Anybody needing a "globally unique" block can get either PA or PI
space.
> ULA-C as such is useless.
> 
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
> 




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.



_______________________________________________
This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
(PPML at arin.net).
Manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:40:52 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
To: jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Cc: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>, ipv6 at ietf.org,
	"address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Message-ID: <04576D9D-F221-480C-A38E-421D96C3251E at delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed


On Jun 15, 2007, at 8:14 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> If you doubt about folks stating anything, then you should read  
> *before*
> minutes of meetings. I'm now off-line in a plane, so can't point  
> you to a
> specific URL, but this has been said at least in one ARIN meeting.
>
> It has been clear across all this discussion in several exploders,  
> that
> there are both opinions, people that want ULA-C and people that  
> don't. What
> you need to be smart here is to realize that those than don't want  
> ULA-C
> have no any objective reason to oppose to it, because implementing  
> ULA-C has
> no negative impact in others. While opposing to it has negative  
> impact to
> all: Folks will use global space (PA or PI) for doing the function  
> of ULA-C
> an this is a waste, yes a small waste but a waste.
>
Jordi,
	You have this backwards.  Using PI for the purposes of ULA-C is
no  
waste
at all.  Sectioning off a huge chunk of address space for ULA-C is  
the waste.
If it's all PI, then, it can seamlessly move between being unrouted  
or routed as
the address-holder sees fit and as needs change.  If it is set aside  
as ULA, then,
the address space is forever wasted and cannot (theoretically) be  
used as
routable space, no matter how little of it is needed for ULA-C.

	Those of us who oppose ULA-C have what we believe to be an
objective
position that it provides no additional benefit over PI space while  
simultaneously
creating some unnecessary classification of addresses that makes  
their status
in the routing table ill-defined at best.  In our opinion, this  
carries the potential
for significant consequences globally.

	Just because we do not agree with you does not mean that our
concerns
are not legitimate.

	Do I think UUNET and others should be able to get secondary  
microallocations
to solve the problem they presented? Absolutely.  Do I think that we  
need to set
aside a /8, /12, /16, or whatever separate from the rest of PI space  
to do it? No.
We should just issue them a /48 or whatever it is they need from the  
general
pool of available PI space and be done with it.  No waste at all.  No  
negative
consequences to anyone.  No ambiguous status as to where you can or  
can't
route the addresses, etc.

Owen



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:13:40 -0500
From: "Kevin Kargel" <kkargel at polartel.com>
Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
To: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>, <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
Cc: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>, ipv6 at ietf.org,
	address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106670703C at mail>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

I agree wholeheartedly.  There is nothing you can do with ULA-C that you
can't do with PI and a minor firewall rule or two.  Leaving the space as
PI gives it either-or capability, putting it as ULA reduces PI.  (And
don't talk about 'more PI than we could ever use'..  remember when Mr.
Gates told us you would never need more than 640K of RAM?)(of course he
denies it now..)

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 2:41 PM
> To: jordi.palet at consulintel.es
> Cc: ARIN People Posting Mailing List; ipv6 at ietf.org; 
> address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
> 
> 
> On Jun 15, 2007, at 8:14 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
> > If you doubt about folks stating anything, then you should read
> > *before*
> > minutes of meetings. I'm now off-line in a plane, so can't 
> point you 
> > to a specific URL, but this has been said at least in one ARIN 
> > meeting.
> >
> > It has been clear across all this discussion in several exploders, 
> > that there are both opinions, people that want ULA-C and 
> people that 
> > don't. What you need to be smart here is to realize that those than 
> > don't want ULA-C have no any objective reason to oppose to 
> it, because 
> > implementing ULA-C has no negative impact in others. While 
> opposing to 
> > it has negative impact to
> > all: Folks will use global space (PA or PI) for doing the 
> function of 
> > ULA-C an this is a waste, yes a small waste but a waste.
> >
> Jordi,
> 	You have this backwards.  Using PI for the purposes of 
> ULA-C is no waste at all.  Sectioning off a huge chunk of 
> address space for ULA-C is the waste.
> If it's all PI, then, it can seamlessly move between being 
> unrouted or routed as the address-holder sees fit and as 
> needs change.  If it is set aside as ULA, then, the address 
> space is forever wasted and cannot (theoretically) be used as 
> routable space, no matter how little of it is needed for ULA-C.
> 
> 	Those of us who oppose ULA-C have what we believe to be 
> an objective position that it provides no additional benefit 
> over PI space while simultaneously creating some unnecessary 
> classification of addresses that makes their status in the 
> routing table ill-defined at best.  In our opinion, this 
> carries the potential for significant consequences globally.
> 
> 	Just because we do not agree with you does not mean 
> that our concerns are not legitimate.
> 
> 	Do I think UUNET and others should be able to get 
> secondary microallocations to solve the problem they 
> presented? Absolutely.  Do I think that we need to set aside 
> a /8, /12, /16, or whatever separate from the rest of PI 
> space to do it? No.
> We should just issue them a /48 or whatever it is they need 
> from the general pool of available PI space and be done with 
> it.  No waste at all.  No negative consequences to anyone.  
> No ambiguous status as to where you can or can't route the 
> addresses, etc.
> 
> Owen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy 
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> 


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
PPML mailing list
PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml


End of PPML Digest, Vol 24, Issue 27
************************************