[ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure

Tue Apr 25 18:13:19 EDT 2006

Not that I dis-agree, but why not a BOF at the next NANOG?

___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, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:08:43 -0400
> From: Marshall Eubanks <tme at multicasttech.com>
> To: "Azinger, Marla" <marla_azinger at eli.net>
> Cc: Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com>, ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure
> 
> This issue had a big discussion about this at the RIPE-52 meeting now  
> on-going in Istanbul, and I believe
> that a resolution similar to 2005-1 is likely to result from it. Are  
> you going to ignore them and the other communities.
> 
> I would suggest a BOF at the Montreal IETF. Here are the parameters  
> for doing this :
> 
> -----
> -- Cut-off date for requesting a session: Monday, June 5 at 17:00 ET  
> (21:00
> UTC/GMT).
> -- Preliminary agenda published for comment: Friday, June 9 by  
> midnight ET.
> -- Cut-off date for requests to reschedule a session: Wednesday, June  
> 14 at
> 09:00 ET (13:00 UTC/GMT).
> -- Final schedule published: Monday, June 19 before midnight ET.
> 
> Submitting Requests for Working Group and BOF Sessions
> 
> Please submit requests to schedule your Working Group sessions using  
> the "IETF
> Meeting Session Request Tool," a Web-based tool for submitting all of  
> the
> information that the Secretariat requires to schedule your sessions.
> -----
> 
> Regards
> Marshall
> 
> On Apr 25, 2006, at 5:47 PM, Azinger, Marla wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 