[ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-7: Changes to IPv6initialallocationcriteria - revised text
Davis, Terry L
terry.l.davis at boeing.com
Wed Feb 21 18:49:33 EST 2007
Yes and no. The addresses for air traffic control systems will not be advertised.
Most likely the addresses for the airline business and operations onboard systems and the IFE providers will be.
There will be three entirely separate networks on an aircraft and due to both international regulations and legal issues they MUST be separate.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [mailto:jordi.palet at consulintel.es]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:07 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-7: Changes to
> IPv6initialallocationcriteria - revised text
> Hi Terry,
> Quick question. Are those addresses being advertised to Internet ? If not,
> you could use ULA-central ?
> > De: "Davis, Terry L" <terry.l.davis at boeing.com>
> > Responder a: <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> > Fecha: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:01:48 -0800
> > Para: <michael.dillon at bt.com>, <ppml at arin.net>
> > Conversación: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-7: Changes to
> > criteria - revised text
> > Asunto: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-7: Changes to
> > criteria - revised text
> > Michael
> > Excellent commentary!
> > For the readers to consider in thinking about your comments:
> > The aviation industry will be developing at least three independent IP
> > networks serving each commercial aircraft flying the world. These
> > networks will span the entire globe! (We have several airlines that
> > have aircraft that literally complete a circle of the globe every few
> > days.)
> > The air traffic control network will be closed as it is today. But the
> > addressing still ideally should come from a single block of addresses
> > (sub-addressed between aircraft and ground system). And these addresses
> > will need to be pooled, distributed, and managed under the rules of the
> > International Civil Aviation Organization. In ICAO's case, they will
> > need the allocation years ahead of the first actual use as they will
> > have to make their allocations from that space to the airlines and
> > governments around the world.
> > The airline networks, for their business communications with their
> > fleets, will also need to almost certainly use a global network design.
> > As will the onboard networks dedicated to serving the passengers for
> > both Internet and live video content to the seat back.
> > I think you will see the same requirements from the maritime and several
> > other industries.
> > Industry and business needs the some type of consideration here.
> > Take care
> > Terry
> > PS: Especially "critical infrastructure"! Next time you are at home and
> > the snow is really deep outside and the wind blowing or it is really hot
> > and the air conditioner is going full tilt, ask yourself if you would
> > like for your power company to be planning switching ISP's that day and
> > re-addressing all their SCADA systems across three or four states?
> > And can you imagine when would be a good time for an airline (even a
> > small one) to switch ISP's without potentially disrupting your travel
> > someway?
> > Or consider any other critical infrastructure that you have to deal with
> > daily and remember critical infrastructure includes small businesses;
> > hospitals, clinics, banks, local fuel distributor, refineries, gas
> > company, etc. When would be a convenient time for them to change ISP's
> > and switch addresses so no one was impacted?
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: michael.dillon at bt.com [mailto:michael.dillon at bt.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:53 AM
> >> To: ppml at arin.net
> >> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-7: Changes to
> >> IPv6initialallocation criteria - revised text
> >>> Aside: It's not entirely clear to me if a provider not
> >>> connected to the
> >>> public Internet can become an LIR; does private "connectivity" and
> >>> "advertising" count?
> >> It counts. RFC 2050 still applies even to IPv6 addressing.
> >> I think our main problem with IPv6 policy is the ISP-centric wording.
> >> For instance, a railway sensor network that spans North America seems
> > to
> >> fit into the category "end-site" which is a totally irrational way to
> >> describe such a network.
> >> One way to address this issue is to restructure the policy and make
> > some
> >> implicit things explicit. For instance:
> >> =====
> >> Secition A) ARIN provides allocations of IPv6 address space to
> >> organizations who operate continually growing networks which connect
> >> many other organizations together. The classic examples of this are
> > the
> >> ISP (Internet Service Provider), the VAN (Value-Added Network) and the
> >> Industry Extranet (automotive, financial services). These
> > organizations
> >> become ARIN LIRs(Local Internet Registries) and are expected to
> > provide
> >> assignments of IPv6 address space to organizations who connect to
> > their
> >> networks.
> >> Section B) ARIN also provides assignments of IPv6 address space to
> >> organizations who are building an IPv6 network that remains largely
> >> under their control with limited interconnectivity with other
> > networks.
> >> This ranges from enterprises to railway consortia to cellphone
> >> operators. The key distinguishing characteristic of these
> > organizations
> >> is that their networks are not continually growing at such a scale
> > that
> >> they have to plan for additional allocations of IPv6 addresses at
> >> regular intervals. In other words, they are not network service
> >> providers whose prime business is network connectivity services.
> >> =====
> >> Given something like this in the policy, then it becomes simpler to
> >> address the area under contention.
> >> Organizations cannot receive IPv6 addresses under both section A and
> >> section B.
> >> Section A organizations must provide sufficient documentation to show
> >> that they are providing IPv6 network services or will do so within the
> >> first year after receiving an allocation.
> >> Section A organizations must sign an LIR agreement with ARIN.
> >> Section A organizations must maintain an active abuse desk contact
> > with
> >> ARIN.
> >> Section A organizations must ...
> >> You can see what I am getting at. We've been hacking away at minor
> >> adjustments to this wording for ages with no resolution. People can't
> >> agree because they don't share the same understanding of the existing
> >> wording. This lack of shared understanding then extends to the minor
> >> changes as well. The solution is to rework a larger section of policy
> >> (or multiple sections of policy) to get some much clearer prose in
> > place
> >> which is unambiguous. In the process, there are some things that are
> > not
> >> clearly spelled out in the policy and they could be. I know it is hard
> >> for the ISP-oriented folks to see this so I hope some of the corporate
> >> members will step up and contribute here. ARIN policy does not have to
> >> be so mystifying.
> >> --Michael Dillon
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
More information about the ARIN-PPML