[ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure

Wed Apr 26 23:14:15 EDT 2006

On 4/25/06, Marshall Eubanks <tme at multicasttech.com> wrote:
> Well, I am not going to say that I disagree about that either, but
> it's pretty clear to me that there are interested people here who do
> not generally
> come to NANOGs or ARIN meetings. Of course, many of them don't come
> to IETF's either...

is there not a reason to pursue it at both? The problem that Jason
(and I think Marla) are dancing around is that in an RIR based
solution, or any solution that is not 'globally agreed upon', lends
itself to a failed solution.

Today, MOST providers will accept and re-advertise a /24 route, this
seems to be a 'globally agreed upon' boundary. This is good and bad
(debate later). In v6 this hasn't really been set yet, though with
2005-1 passing (potentially, depending on AC I suppose?) the boundary
will be /48... it'll quickly be 'all /48' as well I predict.

> On Apr 25, 2006, at 6:13 PM, Jason Schiller (schiller at uu.net) wrote:
>
> > 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
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>