[ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure

Wed Apr 26 11:40:24 EDT 2006

Marla,

I think the best approach might be to bring it up (in a WG or BOF) both at
the next IETF and the next joint NANOG/ARIN meeting.

One advantage of doing it in the IETF's v6ops WG would be that the IETF
has a publication mechanism (RFCs/BCPs).  The disadvantage of that, and an
advantage of doing it in an operator/RIR forum, is that RFCs can't be
updated once published (just obsoleted), so a more "living" document would
be less likely to run into staleness problems...

-Scott

On 04/26/06 at 8:20am -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
>