[ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure

Wed Apr 26 16:23:50 EDT 2006

I think the documents should be produced under IETF charter, most likely.
However, I think that unlike most IETF processes which gain little input
from actual operational concerns because they do not embrace NANOG and
RIRs as well as would be ideal, the discussions should include much
greater outreach to the RIR communities and NANOG and similar operationally
focused organizations.

Owen

--On April 26, 2006 8:20:56 AM -0700 "Azinger, Marla"
<marla_azinger at eli.net> wrote:

> Given the pro's and con's of addressing this issue at ARIN/NANOG vs IETF.
> Who supports taking this to IETF and who supports taking this to
> ARIN/NANOG?
> 
> I ask this so that I know which way to push this.  It appears there are a
> few of us willing to work together in order to try and find a resolution.
> However, I would really like community input on where they would like
> this resolution "created/pushed".
> 
> Thank you
> Marla
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Schiller (schiller at uu.net) [mailto:jason.schiller at mci.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 3:05 PM
> To: Azinger, Marla
> Cc: Thomas Narten; tony.li at tony.li; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure
> 
> 
> I also think this effort is worth pursuing.
> 
> The time frame of the IETF is certainly a factor.
> 
> And the open process of ARIN and a single living policy document that is
> ammended and revised seems well suited to this task. 
> 
> I think it seems natural to group number policy and routing policy
> together as they are closely intertwined.  
> 
> Yet ARIN/NANOG are US centric.  What forums would take on this role in
> other parts of the globe, and how would all of these get synthesized into
> a single global policy standard?  
> 
> The IETF is a global group.  That may be both good and bad.  Good that
> there is a single global standard, but bad if that standard under
> represents certain regions of the globe.  
> 
> I guess my biggest concern is that I'm not sure there is a critical mass
> of operators from each of the regions at the IETF.
> 
> ___Jason
> 
> 
> ==========================================================================
> Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
> Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
> Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller at uu.net
> UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller at verizonbusiness.com
> 
> The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
> it increases traffic on the Internet.
> 
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Azinger, Marla wrote:
> 
>> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:47:33 -0700
>> From: "Azinger, Marla" <marla_azinger at eli.net>
>> To: Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com>, tony.li at tony.li
>> Cc: ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure
>> 
>> Also, I feel as though ARIN/NANOG discussion and forum would lead to a
>> more balanced internet community solution.  Keeping a document that can
>> reside in a specific "reachable" place would be nice.  If it were to
>> reside as a Best business Practice Document with ARIN/NANOG then I feel
>> the ability to "change" it when needed would also be easier to
>> accomplish.   
>> 
>> Marla
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>> Thomas Narten
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:17 PM
>> To: tony.li at tony.li
>> Cc: ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure
>> 
>> 
>> "Tony Li" <tli at tropos.com> writes:
>> 
>> > > What I see frustrating here is that everyone agrees we need 
>> > > some sort of "internet community agreement" that addresses V6 
>> > > routing.  I hear alot of people asking for this, including 
>> > > myself.  Yet I dont hear any specific forum stepping forward 
>> > > to help facilitate this need.
>> 
>> > What you're asking for is a "routing and addressing architecture".
>> > Currently, it's really the purview of the IETF, except that they've
>> > basically abdicated the role.  This creates a vacuum, which, as you
>> > note cries out to be filled.  There are multiple ways to make progress
>> > here, but my favorite is for ARIN to simply push the problem back to
>> > the IETF and insist on a sensible and scalable solution.
>> 
>> I think that what people want has a lot to do with operations and
>> operational practices, an area the IETF struggles with at times. There
>> is v6ops WG in the IETF:
>> 
>>     http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/v6ops-charter.html
>> 
>> Reading the charter, my takes is that what I think I'm hearing people
>> calling for (best practices on things like route filters, is
>> deaggration allowed or not and under what conditions, etc., etc.)
>> would be in-scope there.
>> 
>> Maybe it's time to approach that group (and the ADs), see if there is
>> a willingness to take on such work in the IETF. What they will want to
>> see is a critical mass of folk agreeing on the work that needs to be
>> done (i.e., what kind of document and what is in it) and assurance
>> that there are enough volunteers to do the actual work.  Even if the
>> work is "officially" housed there, there is no reason why the work
>> couldn't also be discussed in the various RIR and operations
>> groups.
>> 
>> I think the IETF would be as good a place as any to try and do this
>> work.  (And I'm willing to help make this happen if people think this
>> is worth pursuing.)
>> 
>> Thomas
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML mailing list
>> PPML at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML mailing list
>> PPML at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20060426/6afdcf4f/attachment.sig>