[ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure

Thu Apr 27 03:22:29 EDT 2006

The relation between addressing policy and routing policy is an artifact
of a bigger mistake. While in V4 due to several constraints, it was 
necessary
to restrict addressing policy to meet immediate routing needs, this should
not become a long-term factor and should be resolved in v6.

Owen

--On April 26, 2006 11:56:35 PM -0400 "Jason Schiller (schiller at uu.net)" 
<jason.schiller at mci.com> wrote:

> Chris,
>
> Yes... and no
>
> So the problem is that each of the forums have the pros and cons...  ITEF
> is global, but BCPs will have to continously be obsoleted, and not easily
> referenced.  IETF maybe lacks enough operators support.
>
> ARIN seems to have a good consensus building forum, and has the IP address
> policy people.  Routing policy seems intertwined with IP address
> policy.  ARIN is not global, and would require some sort of Policy
> Resource Organization (PRO) to synchronize policy between RIRs.
>
> The OGs have more operators and may have more useful input on what the
> concerns about a given routing policy might be.  The NOGs lack any support
> for publishing, or even consensus building, and is not global.
>
> Somehow a mixture of the three seems most optimal...
>
> ___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 Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:14:15 -0400
>> From: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow at gmail.com>
>> To: ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure
>>
>> 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
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- 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/20060427/24325b19/attachment.sig>