From ahp at hilander.com  Mon Mar  5 00:17:37 2001
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:17:37 -0700
Subject: ARIN's IPv6 allocation policy
Message-ID: <3AA32171.BD9B5F47@hilander.com>

The ARIN AC had a teleconference meeting on February 15th.  At that meeting,
we made the following recommendation to the board:

Ron Roberts moved: The Advisory Council recommends to the Board of Trustees
that ARIN allocate IPv6 addresses according to the Internet Draft
<draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommendations-00.txt>. This recommendation
will be regularly reviewed and modified subject to operational experience.

Barbara Roseman seconded the motion.  There was no further discussion.
A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.

Allow me to summarize the discussion that the AC had that led up to this
recommendation:

In the discussion at the meeting, the AC was certainly aware of the
objections that have been raised to this policy.  However, the AC was unable
to reach a concensus on a different policy.  This is primarily due to the
fact that there is very little operational experience to go on with respect
to IPv6.  Therefore, the AC decided to explicitly recommend that ARIN keep
an active eye on the effects of this policy, and make appropriate changes as
operational experience dictates.

Alec

-- 
Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com
Staff Scientist
CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
"Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"


From jfleming at anet.com  Wed Mar  7 13:08:01 2001
From: jfleming at anet.com (JIM FLEMING)
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 12:08:01 -0600
Subject: ARIN's IPv6 allocation policy
References: <3AA32171.BD9B5F47@hilander.com>
Message-ID: <010601c0a731$8d6f6da0$df00a8c0@vaio>

IPv8 and IPv16 place the persistent address in the right-most bits.
The site-id, based on IPv4, goes in the left-most bits.

It appears as though ARIN has decided to go with the IPv6 approach
of putting people's personal serial numbers in the right-most bits.

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
To: <v6wg at arin.net>; <arin-members at arin.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 11:17 PM
Subject: ARIN's IPv6 allocation policy


> The ARIN AC had a teleconference meeting on February 15th.  At that
meeting,
> we made the following recommendation to the board:
>
> Ron Roberts moved: The Advisory Council recommends to the Board of
Trustees
> that ARIN allocate IPv6 addresses according to the Internet Draft
> <draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommendations-00.txt>. This recommendation
> will be regularly reviewed and modified subject to operational experience.
>
> Barbara Roseman seconded the motion.  There was no further discussion.
> A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
>
> Allow me to summarize the discussion that the AC had that led up to this
> recommendation:
>
> In the discussion at the meeting, the AC was certainly aware of the
> objections that have been raised to this policy.  However, the AC was
unable
> to reach a concensus on a different policy.  This is primarily due to the
> fact that there is very little operational experience to go on with
respect
> to IPv6.  Therefore, the AC decided to explicitly recommend that ARIN keep
> an active eye on the effects of this policy, and make appropriate changes
as
> operational experience dictates.
>
> Alec
>
> --
> Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com
> Staff Scientist
> CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
> "Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"
>



From huberman at gblx.net  Mon Mar 12 10:12:05 2001
From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:12:05 -0700 (MST)
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0103120810250.16497-100000@shell1.phx.gblx.net>


> After a discussion concerning the IAB/IESG recommendation for IPv6
> address space allocation on the ARIN IPv6 WG mail list, the ARIN
> Advisory Council is proposing that the following be the ARIN policy
> concerning IPv6 address space allocation:

> "ARIN will allocate IPv6 addresses according to the Internet Draft
>	<http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing
>	-recommendations-00.txt>. 
> This policy will be regularly reviewed and modified subject to
> operational experience."


Global Crossing supports the ARIN AC's policy recommendation.

/david

*--------------------------------*
| Global Crossing IP Engineering |
| Manager, Global IP Addressing  |
|   TEL: (908) 720-6182          |
|   FAX: (703) 464-0802          |
*--------------------------------*



From smarcus at genuity.com  Mon Mar 12 10:33:16 2001
From: smarcus at genuity.com (J. Scott Marcus)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:33:16 -0500
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0103120810250.16497-100000@shell1.phx.gblx.n
 et>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010312103316.00af1e50@pobox3.genuity.com>

At 08:12 03/12/2001 -0700, David R Huberman wrote:
>
>> After a discussion concerning the IAB/IESG recommendation for IPv6
>> address space allocation on the ARIN IPv6 WG mail list, the ARIN
>> Advisory Council is proposing that the following be the ARIN policy
>> concerning IPv6 address space allocation:
>
>> "ARIN will allocate IPv6 addresses according to the Internet Draft
>>	<http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing
>>	-recommendations-00.txt>. 
>> This policy will be regularly reviewed and modified subject to
>> operational experience."
>
>
>Global Crossing supports the ARIN AC's policy recommendation.



Speaking only for myself...



I have recently heard rumbles that this IPv6 allocation policy is STILL a
topic of intense discussion within the IESG/IAB -- not at all the done deal
that many of us might have assumed.

With that in mind, I would respectfully suggest that we (ARIN) consider
deferring action to give things time to sort themselves out.

Cheers,
- Scott


From ahp at hilander.com  Mon Mar 12 10:51:56 2001
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:51:56 -0700
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy
References: <3.0.5.32.20010312103316.00af1e50@pobox3.genuity.com>
Message-ID: <3AACF09C.D5F99C4@hilander.com>

"J. Scott Marcus" wrote:
> 
> I have recently heard rumbles that this IPv6 allocation policy is STILL a
> topic of intense discussion within the IESG/IAB -- not at all the done deal
> that many of us might have assumed.
> 
> With that in mind, I would respectfully suggest that we (ARIN) consider
> deferring action to give things time to sort themselves out.

During the AC meeting this was brought up.  The general feeling was that we
have deferred action on this topic too long already...

Alec

-- 
Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com
Staff Scientist
CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
"Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"


From deering at cisco.com  Mon Mar 12 10:56:21 2001
From: deering at cisco.com (Steve Deering)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:56:21 -0800
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010312103316.00af1e50@pobox3.genuity.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.20010312103316.00af1e50@pobox3.genuity.com>
Message-ID: <v04220804b6d29e376bf8@[10.19.130.188]>

Scott,

As an IAB member, I can report that there has been NO "intense discussion",
or discussion of any sort, in the IAB about the "/48" recommendation since
that draft was submitted.  I also haven't heard of any such discussion in
the IESG, but I suppose it's possible.  My sense is that everyone in the
IAB & IESG who cares is content with the recommendation, and just
waiting to see if ARIN is going to go along with it.

There *is* active discussion in the IPv6 Directorate about the nature
of the high-order (i.e., left-hand side) structure of the IPv6 address
(e.g., removing the fixed field width from the TLA field as being
inappropriate for an "architecture" spec, given that we don't want
routers to hard code knowledge of such boundaries).  But in the
Directorate as well, there is no controversy about the /48 recommendation
for allocations to subscribers.

My perception is that the /48 recommendation *is* a "done deal" in the
IETF, but perhaps I'm not hearing the "rumbles" you are.  Can you be
more specific about what you have heard and/or from whom you have heard
otherwise?

Steve


At 10:33 AM -0500 3/12/01, J. Scott Marcus wrote:
>At 08:12 03/12/2001 -0700, David R Huberman wrote:
> >
> >> After a discussion concerning the IAB/IESG recommendation for IPv6
> >> address space allocation on the ARIN IPv6 WG mail list, the ARIN
> >> Advisory Council is proposing that the following be the ARIN policy
> >> concerning IPv6 address space allocation:
> >
> >> "ARIN will allocate IPv6 addresses according to the Internet Draft
> >>	<http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing
> >>	-recommendations-00.txt>. 
> >> This policy will be regularly reviewed and modified subject to
> >> operational experience."
> >
> >
> >Global Crossing supports the ARIN AC's policy recommendation.
>
>
>
>Speaking only for myself...
>
>
>
>I have recently heard rumbles that this IPv6 allocation policy is STILL a
>topic of intense discussion within the IESG/IAB -- not at all the done deal
>that many of us might have assumed.
>
>With that in mind, I would respectfully suggest that we (ARIN) consider
>deferring action to give things time to sort themselves out.
>
>Cheers,
>- Scott



From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com  Mon Mar 12 11:46:46 2001
From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:46:46 +0000 (UCT)
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010312103316.00af1e50@pobox3.genuity.com> from "J. Scott Marcus" at Mar 12, 2001 10:33:16 AM
Message-ID: <200103121646.QAA08298@vacation.karoshi.com>

> At 08:12 03/12/2001 -0700, David R Huberman wrote:
> >  Ray might have said:
> >> "ARIN will allocate IPv6 addresses according to the Internet Draft
> >>	<http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing
> >>	-recommendations-00.txt>. 
> >> This policy will be regularly reviewed and modified subject to
> >> operational experience."
> >
> >Global Crossing supports the ARIN AC's policy recommendation.
> 
> 
> Speaking only for myself...
> 
> I have recently heard rumbles that this IPv6 allocation policy is STILL a
> topic of intense discussion within the IESG/IAB -- not at all the done deal
> that many of us might have assumed.

	Some of us had no such illusions. Hence the change, adding
	the last sentence... "regularly reviewed & modified subject
	to experience..."

> With that in mind, I would respectfully suggest that we (ARIN) consider
> deferring action to give things time to sort themselves out.

	Why wait?  With the last proviso in place, we can let ARIN get on
	with the process of getting v6 assets in play so we can gain
	the Operational Experience needed to make sane recommendations.
	Otherwise we wait on the IAB/IESG to "consider" away w/o any
	operational feedback from ARIN. They will get it from APNIC & RIPE.

> 
> Cheers,
> - Scott
> 



From jtk at titania.net  Mon Mar 12 13:33:44 2001
From: jtk at titania.net (Joseph T. Klein)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:33:44 -0800
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy
References: <3.0.5.32.20010312103316.00af1e50@pobox3.genuity.com>
Message-ID: <3AAD1688.2020505@titania.net>

It would be benificial if the ARIN participants who are IESG members
would speak up at this point and comment.

J. Scott Marcus wrote:

> At 08:12 03/12/2001 -0700, David R Huberman wrote:
> 
>>> After a discussion concerning the IAB/IESG recommendation for IPv6
>>> address space allocation on the ARIN IPv6 WG mail list, the ARIN
>>> Advisory Council is proposing that the following be the ARIN policy
>>> concerning IPv6 address space allocation:
>> 
>>> "ARIN will allocate IPv6 addresses according to the Internet Draft
>>> 	<http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing
>>> 	-recommendations-00.txt>. 
>>> This policy will be regularly reviewed and modified subject to
>>> operational experience."
>> 
>> 
>> Global Crossing supports the ARIN AC's policy recommendation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking only for myself...
> 
> 
> 
> I have recently heard rumbles that this IPv6 allocation policy is STILL a
> topic of intense discussion within the IESG/IAB -- not at all the done deal
> that many of us might have assumed.
> 
> With that in mind, I would respectfully suggest that we (ARIN) consider
> deferring action to give things time to sort themselves out.
> 
> Cheers,
> - Scott


-- 
Joseph T. Klein                                 +1 414 915 7489
Senior Network Engineer                         jtk at titania.net
Adelphia Business Solutions        joseph.klein at adelphiacom.com

  "... the true value of the Internet is its connectedness ..."
                                         -- John W. Stewart III



From randy at psg.com  Mon Mar 12 11:45:48 2001
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:45:48 -0800
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy
References: <3.0.5.32.20010312103316.00af1e50@pobox3.genuity.com>
	<200103121646.QAA08298@vacation.karoshi.com>
Message-ID: <E14cVS8-0009Ew-00@rip.psg.com>

> 	Why wait?  With the last proviso in place, we can let ARIN get on
> 	with the process of getting v6 assets in play so we can gain
> 	the Operational Experience needed to make sane recommendations.
> 	Otherwise we wait on the IAB/IESG to "consider" away w/o any
> 	operational feedback from ARIN. They will get it from APNIC & RIPE.

you speak as if v6 address space was not being allocated by arin.  to the
best of my knowledge, it is.

and, to the best of my knowledge, ripe and apnic are doing the same as arin
is already.  but they are less inclined than you seem to be to jump without
member discussion and consensus.

randy


From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com  Mon Mar 12 13:02:13 2001
From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:02:13 +0000 (UCT)
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy
In-Reply-To: <E14cVS8-0009Ew-00@rip.psg.com> from "Randy Bush" at Mar 12, 2001 08:45:48 AM
Message-ID: <200103121802.SAA08385@vacation.karoshi.com>

> > 	Why wait?  With the last proviso in place, we can let ARIN get on
> > 	with the process of getting v6 assets in play so we can gain
> > 	the Operational Experience needed to make sane recommendations.
> > 	Otherwise we wait on the IAB/IESG to "consider" away w/o any
> > 	operational feedback from ARIN. They will get it from APNIC & RIPE.
> 
> you speak as if v6 address space was not being allocated by arin.  to the
> best of my knowledge, it is.

	To the best of my knowledge, ARIN is. But not according to 
	the IAB/IESG guidelines. With the adoption of the IAB/IESG 
	guidelines, ARIN will be aligned with the other registries.

> and, to the best of my knowledge, ripe and apnic are doing the same as arin
> is already.  but they are less inclined than you seem to be to jump without
> member discussion and consensus.

	RIPE & APNIC are delegating according to IAB/IESG guidelines.
	And the discussion on the v6wg list supports a consensus opinion
	that the IAB/IESG recommendations be adopted. This was considered
	by the ARIN AC and was sent to the Board. ARINs president just
	made the announcment that ARIN is adopting the IAB/IESG recommendation
	modulo operational experience. If you feel that ARIN should not 
	adopt the IAB/IESG recommendations, please add your reasoned 
	discussion to the list. 

>	 
> randy
> 



From randy at psg.com  Mon Mar 12 12:54:01 2001
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:54:01 -0800
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy
References: <E14cVS8-0009Ew-00@rip.psg.com>
	<200103121802.SAA08385@vacation.karoshi.com>
Message-ID: <E14cWW9-000BCU-00@rip.psg.com>

you seem to be missing a basic simple fact.  the draft, which is a draft,
not guidelines, discusses how an lir allocates to an end site/user, not how
an rir, i.e. arin, apnic, ripe, allocate to an lir.  so statements such as

> 	To the best of my knowledge, ARIN is. But not according to 
> 	the IAB/IESG guidelines. With the adoption of the IAB/IESG 
> 	guidelines, ARIN will be aligned with the other registries.
> ...
> 	RIPE & APNIC are delegating according to IAB/IESG guidelines.

are misleading at best.

> 	And the discussion on the v6wg list supports a consensus opinion

please point to that discussion.  i am a member of that list.  my memory
is that there was ZERO discussion, ZERO.

> 	that the IAB/IESG recommendations be adopted.

there are no iab/iesg recommendations.  there is an internet draft.  you may
wish to read rfc 2026 regarding the applicability of internet drafts.

randy


From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com  Mon Mar 12 13:47:37 2001
From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:47:37 +0000 (UCT)
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy
In-Reply-To: <E14cWW9-000BCU-00@rip.psg.com> from "Randy Bush" at Mar 12, 2001 09:54:01 AM
Message-ID: <200103121847.SAA08476@vacation.karoshi.com>

> > 	And the discussion on the v6wg list supports a consensus opinion
> 
> please point to that discussion.  i am a member of that list.  my memory
> is that there was ZERO discussion, ZERO.

	Most of the discussion occured between 28 January and 09 February.
	You participated. Archives are available for purusal.

	
> > 	that the IAB/IESG recommendations be adopted.
> 
> there are no iab/iesg recommendations. 

draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommendations-00.txt

	then.

	This statement was sent to the ARIN announce list this morning:

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:41:03 -0500 (EST)
To: arin-announce at arin.net, ppml at arin.net
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed
Sender: owner-arin-announce at arin.net
Precedence: bulk


After a discussion concerning the IAB/IESG recommendation for IPv6 address
space allocation on the ARIN IPv6 WG mail list, the ARIN Advisory Council
is proposing that the following be the ARIN policy concerning IPv6 address
space allocation:

"ARIN will allocate IPv6 addresses according to the Internet Draft
<http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommendatio
ns-00.txt>. 
This policy will be regularly reviewed and modified subject to operational
experience."

Any interested party is invited to comment on this proposed policy on the
ARIN IPv6 WG mail list.  To subscribe, visit the following URL:

        http://www.arin.net/members/mailing.htm

Your participation and comment, whether you are an ARIN member or not,
is very important to the policy development process in the ARIN region,
so please take the time to participate in this process.

Ray Plzak
President
ARIN

....

	It talks about an IAB/IESG recommendation.  If there is a reason
	to -NOT- have ARIN adopt a policy in line with this IAB/IESG
	authored Internet Draft that the ARIN v6wg calls a recommendation based
	in part on its title, I'm sure the mailing list would appreciate
	hearing about it. If you think that ARIN ought to adopt a policy
	in line with this IAB/IESG authored Internet Draft that the ARIN
	v6wg calls a recommendation based in part on its title, then that 
	would be useful as well. 

> 
> randy
> 



From brian at hursley.ibm.com  Mon Mar 12 13:34:38 2001
From: brian at hursley.ibm.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:34:38 -0600
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy
References: <3.0.5.32.20010312103316.00af1e50@pobox3.genuity.com> <v04220804b6d29e376bf8@[10.19.130.188]>
Message-ID: <3AAD16BE.46D9F3ED@hursley.ibm.com>

Steve is correct. If you remember, in the ARIN meeting last Sept. where I
spoke, the question of how allocation is done above the /48 boundary
was very briefly mentioned as something that is *not* addressed by the
IAB/IESG draft under discussion. That's not to say it isn't important,
but it's a separate question from recommending /48 allocations for sites.

  Brian

Steve Deering wrote:
> 
> Scott,
> 
> As an IAB member, I can report that there has been NO "intense discussion",
> or discussion of any sort, in the IAB about the "/48" recommendation since
> that draft was submitted.  I also haven't heard of any such discussion in
> the IESG, but I suppose it's possible.  My sense is that everyone in the
> IAB & IESG who cares is content with the recommendation, and just
> waiting to see if ARIN is going to go along with it.
> 
> There *is* active discussion in the IPv6 Directorate about the nature
> of the high-order (i.e., left-hand side) structure of the IPv6 address
> (e.g., removing the fixed field width from the TLA field as being
> inappropriate for an "architecture" spec, given that we don't want
> routers to hard code knowledge of such boundaries).  But in the
> Directorate as well, there is no controversy about the /48 recommendation
> for allocations to subscribers.
> 
> My perception is that the /48 recommendation *is* a "done deal" in the
> IETF, but perhaps I'm not hearing the "rumbles" you are.  Can you be
> more specific about what you have heard and/or from whom you have heard
> otherwise?
> 
> Steve
> 
> At 10:33 AM -0500 3/12/01, J. Scott Marcus wrote:
> >At 08:12 03/12/2001 -0700, David R Huberman wrote:
> > >
> > >> After a discussion concerning the IAB/IESG recommendation for IPv6
> > >> address space allocation on the ARIN IPv6 WG mail list, the ARIN
> > >> Advisory Council is proposing that the following be the ARIN policy
> > >> concerning IPv6 address space allocation:
> > >
> > >> "ARIN will allocate IPv6 addresses according to the Internet Draft
> > >>    <http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing
> > >>    -recommendations-00.txt>.
> > >> This policy will be regularly reviewed and modified subject to
> > >> operational experience."
> > >
> > >
> > >Global Crossing supports the ARIN AC's policy recommendation.
> >
> >
> >
> >Speaking only for myself...
> >
> >
> >
> >I have recently heard rumbles that this IPv6 allocation policy is STILL a
> >topic of intense discussion within the IESG/IAB -- not at all the done deal
> >that many of us might have assumed.
> >
> >With that in mind, I would respectfully suggest that we (ARIN) consider
> >deferring action to give things time to sort themselves out.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >- Scott


From smarcus at genuity.com  Mon Mar 12 13:33:51 2001
From: smarcus at genuity.com (J. Scott Marcus)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:33:51 -0500
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy
In-Reply-To: <200103121802.SAA08385@vacation.karoshi.com>
References: <E14cVS8-0009Ew-00@rip.psg.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010312133351.00b7fc30@pobox3.genuity.com>

At 18:02 03/12/2001 +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

> ...  This was considered
>	by the ARIN AC and was sent to the Board. ARINs president just
>	made the announcment that ARIN is adopting the IAB/IESG recommendation
>	modulo operational experience...


Actually, Bill, this is not quite right.

The Board generally wants new public policies to be introduced by the AC
and then discussed by the membership and the general public before we act.
The sentiment within the Board was that this requirement was not adequately
met (for a variety of reasons) by the discussion that took place at our
last Public Policy meeting.

Ray Plzak's e-mail did NOT state that this policy was now in effect.  He
noted that the AC had recommended it, and called for discussion.  We give
_great weight_ to AC recommendations, but they do not automatically become
policy.

What Ray said was:

>After a discussion concerning the IAB/IESG recommendation for IPv6 address
>space allocation on the ARIN IPv6 WG mail list, the ARIN Advisory Council
>is proposing that the following be the ARIN policy concerning IPv6 address
>space allocation:
>
>"ARIN will allocate IPv6 addresses according to the Internet Draft
><http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommen
dations-00.txt>. 
>This policy will be regularly reviewed and modified subject to operational
>experience."
>
>Any interested party is invited to comment on this proposed policy on the
>ARIN IPv6 WG mail list...


From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com  Mon Mar 12 14:11:54 2001
From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 19:11:54 +0000 (UCT)
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010312133351.00b7fc30@pobox3.genuity.com> from "J. Scott Marcus" at Mar 12, 2001 01:33:51 PM
Message-ID: <200103121911.TAA08525@vacation.karoshi.com>

> 
> At 18:02 03/12/2001 +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> 
> > ...  This was considered
> >	by the ARIN AC and was sent to the Board. ARINs president just
> >	made the announcment that ARIN is adopting the IAB/IESG recommendation
> >	modulo operational experience...
> 
> 
> Actually, Bill, this is not quite right.

	Thank you Scott for clarifing the error of my statements. I 
	overstated the case. I understand that there
	will be further discussion at the upcoming Open meeting in 
	San Francisco next week.

--bill


From randy at psg.com  Mon Mar 12 14:03:37 2001
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:03:37 -0800
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy
References: <E14cWW9-000BCU-00@rip.psg.com>
	<200103121847.SAA08476@vacation.karoshi.com>
Message-ID: <E14cXbV-000DBU-00@rip.psg.com>

>>> 	that the IAB/IESG recommendations be adopted.
>> there are no iab/iesg recommendations. 
> draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommendations-00.txt

you may actually wish to READ the document you're referencing.  from the
first page:

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

the iesg and the v6 directorate are discussing the v6 addressing issues,
both within the ietf and with responsible folk at the rirs, and we hope
to have a more clear and broader agreement in time for the arin meeting.

in the meantime, is there a precis somewhere of the verbal position you
are reported to have taken at the last arin meeting?  it is said that you
personally spoke quite vociferously against the draft, and we might like
to see if the ongoing work addresses your issues.

randy


From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com  Mon Mar 12 14:40:05 2001
From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 19:40:05 +0000 (UCT)
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy
In-Reply-To: <E14cXbV-000DBU-00@rip.psg.com> from "Randy Bush" at Mar 12, 2001 11:03:37 AM
Message-ID: <200103121940.TAA08559@vacation.karoshi.com>

> the iesg and the v6 directorate are discussing the v6 addressing issues,
> both within the ietf and with responsible folk at the rirs, and we hope
> to have a more clear and broader agreement in time for the arin meeting.

	Great. Perhaps you could have something ready a few weeks 
	prior to the ARIN mtg. so people would have a chance to review
	it ahead of time.

> in the meantime, is there a precis somewhere of the verbal position you
> are reported to have taken at the last arin meeting?  it is said that you
> personally spoke quite vociferously against the draft, and we might like
> to see if the ongoing work addresses your issues.

	I'm not too sure who "it" is that purports what my participation
	was at the mtg.  The meeting minutes are available and they 
	document the major comments and the parties that raised the issues.
	http://www.arin.net/minutes/public/arinvi/ARIN_VI_PPM_files/outline_collapsed.htm#ipv6

	My feelings in this matter are of little interest or concern to most.
	I thank you for you consideration however. 

> 
> randy
> 



From randy at psg.com  Mon Mar 12 14:41:44 2001
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:41:44 -0800
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy
References: <E14cXbV-000DBU-00@rip.psg.com>
	<200103121940.TAA08559@vacation.karoshi.com>
Message-ID: <E14cYCO-000EEb-00@rip.psg.com>

>> the iesg and the v6 directorate are discussing the v6 addressing issues,
>> both within the ietf and with responsible folk at the rirs, and we hope
>> to have a more clear and broader agreement in time for the arin meeting.
> Great. Perhaps you could have something ready a few weeks 
> prior to the ARIN mtg. so people would have a chance to review
> it ahead of time.

wish we could, but life has not worked out that way.  as the sf arin meeting
will be far from the last forum in which this will be discussed before it
starts to have concrete poured around it, haste is probably not productive.

randy


From tony at lava.net  Mon Mar 12 15:04:32 2001
From: tony at lava.net (Antonio Querubin)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:04:32 -1000 (HST)
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.05.10103120737410.25114-100000@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.30.0103120934110.23792-100000@malasada.lava.net>

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Member Services wrote:

> After a discussion concerning the IAB/IESG recommendation for IPv6 address
> space allocation on the ARIN IPv6 WG mail list, the ARIN Advisory Council
> is proposing that the following be the ARIN policy concerning IPv6 address
> space allocation:
>
> "ARIN will allocate IPv6 addresses according to the Internet Draft
> <http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommendations-00.txt>.
> This policy will be regularly reviewed and modified subject to operational
> experience."

The draft has the following recommendations:

1.  Home network subscribers, connecting through on-demand or
    always-on connections should received a /48.
2.  Small and large enterprises should received a /48.
3.  Very large subscribers could receive a /47 or slightly shorter
    prefix, or multiple /48's.
4.  Networks with a clearly expressed disinterest in subnetting
    should received a /64.
5.  Mobile networks, such as vehicles, cellular phones should
    received a static /64 prefix to allow the connection of multiple
    devices and, depending on the architecture, a /128 for a
    MobileIP care-of address [MobIPv6].
6.  Subscribers with a single dial-up node preferring a transient
    address should received a /128.


Just some random thoughts on several of the above recommendations:

With regard to #1 I'm curious as to what constitutes a 'home network
subscriber' in this draft?  Our experience with what we generally consider
home network subscribers to be is that none subnet at all.  That being the
case, why assign a /48 when a /64 is quite adequate while still providing
the home user with full capability?

With regard to #2 most small organizations do not bother to subnet - they
generally use switches to divide up traffic.  Subnetting requires routers
of which the majority aren't IPv6-aware anyway.  Another alternative for
#2 would be to combine it with #3:  small enterprises be assigned one or
more /64s while very large enterprises receive a /48.  It seems to me that
we should use a SLA for it's intended purpose - that it be specific to a
'site'.  But if sites are being assigned /48 where does that leave the
NLA?

It seems that #1 and #2 above could/should be qualified with having a
requirement to subnet or be geographically dispersed.



From brian at hursley.ibm.com  Mon Mar 12 15:46:53 2001
From: brian at hursley.ibm.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:46:53 -0600
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed
References: <Pine.BSI.4.30.0103120934110.23792-100000@malasada.lava.net>
Message-ID: <3AAD35BD.9993E41A@hursley.ibm.com>

Antonio Querubin wrote:
...
> The draft has the following recommendations:
> 
> 1.  Home network subscribers, connecting through on-demand or
>     always-on connections should received a /48.
> 2.  Small and large enterprises should received a /48.
> 3.  Very large subscribers could receive a /47 or slightly shorter
>     prefix, or multiple /48's.
> 4.  Networks with a clearly expressed disinterest in subnetting
>     should received a /64.
> 5.  Mobile networks, such as vehicles, cellular phones should
>     received a static /64 prefix to allow the connection of multiple
>     devices and, depending on the architecture, a /128 for a
>     MobileIP care-of address [MobIPv6].
> 6.  Subscribers with a single dial-up node preferring a transient
>     address should received a /128.
> 
> Just some random thoughts on several of the above recommendations:
> 
> With regard to #1 I'm curious as to what constitutes a 'home network
> subscriber' in this draft?  Our experience with what we generally consider
> home network subscribers to be is that none subnet at all.  That being the
> case, why assign a /48 when a /64 is quite adequate while still providing
> the home user with full capability?

Because what we expect to see, technologically, is rapid growth in in-home
(or in-vehicle) networks. So it is risky to assume that current practice
represents the future.
 
> With regard to #2 most small organizations do not bother to subnet - they
> generally use switches to divide up traffic.  Subnetting requires routers
> of which the majority aren't IPv6-aware anyway.  Another alternative for
> #2 would be to combine it with #3:  small enterprises be assigned one or
> more /64s while very large enterprises receive a /48.  It seems to me that
> we should use a SLA for it's intended purpose - that it be specific to a
> 'site'.  But if sites are being assigned /48 where does that leave the
> NLA

We're asserting that due to the growth, we expect even small organizations
will become sites in the sense of needing subnets.

> 
> It seems that #1 and #2 above could/should be qualified with having a
> requirement to subnet or be geographically dispersed.

Do you want to be in the business of making that judgement on your users?

   Brian


From tony at lava.net  Mon Mar 12 16:55:52 2001
From: tony at lava.net (Antonio Querubin)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:55:52 -1000 (HST)
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed
In-Reply-To: <3AAD35BD.9993E41A@hursley.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.30.0103121120210.23792-100000@malasada.lava.net>

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Antonio Querubin wrote:

> > Just some random thoughts on several of the above recommendations:
> >
> > With regard to #1 I'm curious as to what constitutes a 'home network
> > subscriber' in this draft?  Our experience with what we generally consider
> > home network subscribers to be is that none subnet at all.  That being the
> > case, why assign a /48 when a /64 is quite adequate while still providing
> > the home user with full capability?
>
> Because what we expect to see, technologically, is rapid growth in in-home
> (or in-vehicle) networks. So it is risky to assume that current practice
> represents the future.

Rapid growth in home networks has already been occurring but we don't see
subnetting happening in that environment.  Is this draft to be reviewed
and revised based on operational experience or on something that to me
seems to be somewhat unrealistic?

> > With regard to #2 most small organizations do not bother to subnet - they
> > generally use switches to divide up traffic.  Subnetting requires routers
> > of which the majority aren't IPv6-aware anyway.  Another alternative for
> > #2 would be to combine it with #3:  small enterprises be assigned one or
> > more /64s while very large enterprises receive a /48.  It seems to me that
> > we should use a SLA for it's intended purpose - that it be specific to a
> > 'site'.  But if sites are being assigned /48 where does that leave the
> > NLA
>
> We're asserting that due to the growth, we expect even small organizations
> will become sites in the sense of needing subnets.

No problem with that argument but why begin assigning them at the /48
prefixlength?

> > It seems that #1 and #2 above could/should be qualified with having a
> > requirement to subnet or be geographically dispersed.
>
> Do you want to be in the business of making that judgement on your users?

We do that now and why would that change just because we have lots of IPv6
address space to give out?  The customer still makes the determination of
how much address space they need and we accomodate what their stated
requirements are.  But if someone were to come to me and say 'I need 200
or so /48s' do you really think I'd say sure without asking them just a
few questions?  The questions I'd ask of a large organization are still
the same questions I'd ask of a small organization.

Consider ARIN's existing IPv4 allocation guidelines.  In order for an ISP
to obtain additional address space ARIN expects the upstream to enforce
guidelines similar to its own.  Eg. you need to demonstrate 80%
utilization of existing space before you can acquire more.  What applies
to the ISP applies to the end user.

With IPv6 I imagine ARIN will continue to impose some kind of criteria
based on this draft.  While one might assume the IPv6 allocation criteria
might be noticeably more liberal than the IPv4 criteria is there any
reason for ARIN not to expect the ISP to impose similar IPv6 criteria on
its downstream customers?  That being the case the ISP still has to make
judgement calls.



From randy at psg.com  Mon Mar 12 17:07:23 2001
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:07:23 -0800
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed
References: <3AAD35BD.9993E41A@hursley.ibm.com>
	<Pine.BSI.4.30.0103121120210.23792-100000@malasada.lava.net>
Message-ID: <E14caTL-000IPQ-00@rip.psg.com>

> Consider ARIN's existing IPv4 allocation guidelines.  In order for an ISP
> to obtain additional address space ARIN expects the upstream to enforce
> guidelines similar to its own.  Eg. you need to demonstrate 80%
> utilization of existing space before you can acquire more.  What applies
> to the ISP applies to the end user.

are you suggesting that an end user which is assigned a /48 for use in site
A can not get space for site B until they have utilized 80% of site A's
allocation?  as folk are likely to be filtering on the /48 or shorter, there
are subtle but familiar issues here.

randy


From tony at lava.net  Mon Mar 12 17:14:44 2001
From: tony at lava.net (Antonio Querubin)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:14:44 -1000 (HST)
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed
In-Reply-To: <E14caTL-000IPQ-00@rip.psg.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.30.0103121209390.23792-100000@malasada.lava.net>

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Randy Bush wrote:

> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:07:23 -0800
> From: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
> To: Antonio Querubin <tony at lava.net>
> Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian at hursley.ibm.com>, v6wg at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed
>
> > Consider ARIN's existing IPv4 allocation guidelines.  In order for an ISP
> > to obtain additional address space ARIN expects the upstream to enforce
> > guidelines similar to its own.  Eg. you need to demonstrate 80%
> > utilization of existing space before you can acquire more.  What applies
> > to the ISP applies to the end user.
>
> are you suggesting that an end user which is assigned a /48 for use in site
> A can not get space for site B until they have utilized 80% of site A's
> allocation?  as folk are likely to be filtering on the /48 or shorter, there
> are subtle but familiar issues here.

No, I'm saying those are ARIN's guidelines for IPv4 assignments and that
ISPs are expected to enforce similar guidelines on their downstream IPv4
customers.

ARIN will be adopting IPv6 guidelines as well.  But will ARIN also expect
ISPs to enforce similar guidelines to their downstreams?  If so, then my
point is that ISPs are STILL in the business of making judgement calls on
what the downstream customer gets.  Ie. what determines who is a big
versus small organization and how much IPv6 address space does one get
versus the other?



From smarcus at genuity.com  Mon Mar 12 17:28:58 2001
From: smarcus at genuity.com (J. Scott Marcus)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:28:58 -0500
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed
In-Reply-To: <3AAD35BD.9993E41A@hursley.ibm.com>
References: <Pine.BSI.4.30.0103120934110.23792-100000@malasada.lava.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010312172858.00929db0@pobox3.genuity.com>

At 14:46 03/12/2001 -0600, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Antonio Querubin wrote:
>...
>> The draft has the following recommendations:
>> 
>> 1.  Home network subscribers, connecting through on-demand or
>>     always-on connections should received a /48.
>> 2.  Small and large enterprises should received a /48....

< ... snip ...>

>> It seems that #1 and #2 above could/should be qualified with having a
>> requirement to subnet or be geographically dispersed.
>
>Do you want to be in the business of making that judgement on your users?

Absolutely!

Delegated through the ISPs, of course.  I'd do it in a heartbeat.

It imposes no burden to speak of.  We KNOW what services we're selling, and
to whom.  The cable or DSL that we sell to a small household (suitable for,
say, a /56) is a distinct service from the leased line connection that we
sell to a medium or large enerprise.  Marketing and deployment are separate
or trivially separable.  And if we are dynamically allocating an IP address
to a dial-up user, we know that, too.


From brian at hursley.ibm.com  Tue Mar 13 10:22:00 2001
From: brian at hursley.ibm.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:22:00 -0600
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed
References: <Pine.BSI.4.30.0103121120210.23792-100000@malasada.lava.net>
Message-ID: <3AAE3B18.3FB29F59@hursley.ibm.com>

Antonio,

Let's do a slight reset here, because I don't want to seem to
dispute operational experience.

The most important suggestion in the draft is: if you allocate subnet space,
allocate a /48. Otherwise, allocate a /64.

We seem to be arguing about how to make that judgement. I'm not even sure it's
worth arguing about or trying to write down global criteria for making the
judgement. My gut feeling is to be more liberal about allocating /48s than
you want to, because we have a *lot* of them. But as long as we stick to
allocating either /48 or /64, to keep things clean, it doesn't ultimately
matter if different operators make different judgement calls.

  Brian

Antonio Querubin wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> > Antonio Querubin wrote:
> 
> > > Just some random thoughts on several of the above recommendations:
> > >
> > > With regard to #1 I'm curious as to what constitutes a 'home network
> > > subscriber' in this draft?  Our experience with what we generally consider
> > > home network subscribers to be is that none subnet at all.  That being the
> > > case, why assign a /48 when a /64 is quite adequate while still providing
> > > the home user with full capability?
> >
> > Because what we expect to see, technologically, is rapid growth in in-home
> > (or in-vehicle) networks. So it is risky to assume that current practice
> > represents the future.
> 
> Rapid growth in home networks has already been occurring but we don't see
> subnetting happening in that environment.  Is this draft to be reviewed
> and revised based on operational experience or on something that to me
> seems to be somewhat unrealistic?
> 
> > > With regard to #2 most small organizations do not bother to subnet - they
> > > generally use switches to divide up traffic.  Subnetting requires routers
> > > of which the majority aren't IPv6-aware anyway.  Another alternative for
> > > #2 would be to combine it with #3:  small enterprises be assigned one or
> > > more /64s while very large enterprises receive a /48.  It seems to me that
> > > we should use a SLA for it's intended purpose - that it be specific to a
> > > 'site'.  But if sites are being assigned /48 where does that leave the
> > > NLA
> >
> > We're asserting that due to the growth, we expect even small organizations
> > will become sites in the sense of needing subnets.
> 
> No problem with that argument but why begin assigning them at the /48
> prefixlength?
> 
> > > It seems that #1 and #2 above could/should be qualified with having a
> > > requirement to subnet or be geographically dispersed.
> >
> > Do you want to be in the business of making that judgement on your users?
> 
> We do that now and why would that change just because we have lots of IPv6
> address space to give out?  The customer still makes the determination of
> how much address space they need and we accomodate what their stated
> requirements are.  But if someone were to come to me and say 'I need 200
> or so /48s' do you really think I'd say sure without asking them just a
> few questions?  The questions I'd ask of a large organization are still
> the same questions I'd ask of a small organization.
> 
> Consider ARIN's existing IPv4 allocation guidelines.  In order for an ISP
> to obtain additional address space ARIN expects the upstream to enforce
> guidelines similar to its own.  Eg. you need to demonstrate 80%
> utilization of existing space before you can acquire more.  What applies
> to the ISP applies to the end user.
> 
> With IPv6 I imagine ARIN will continue to impose some kind of criteria
> based on this draft.  While one might assume the IPv6 allocation criteria
> might be noticeably more liberal than the IPv4 criteria is there any
> reason for ARIN not to expect the ISP to impose similar IPv6 criteria on
> its downstream customers?  That being the case the ISP still has to make
> judgement calls.


From smarcus at genuity.com  Wed Mar 21 10:22:15 2001
From: smarcus at genuity.com (J. Scott Marcus)
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:22:15 -0600
Subject: ARIN IPv6 Policy
In-Reply-To: <3AAD16BE.46D9F3ED@hursley.ibm.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.20010312103316.00af1e50@pobox3.genuity.com>
 <v04220804b6d29e376bf8@[10.19.130.188]>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010321092215.0090e6a0@pobox3.genuity.com>

At 12:34 03/12/2001 -0600, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

< ... snip ...>

>> There *is* active discussion in the IPv6 Directorate about the nature
>> of the high-order (i.e., left-hand side) structure of the IPv6 address
>> (e.g., removing the fixed field width from the TLA field as being
>> inappropriate for an "architecture" spec, given that we don't want
>> routers to hard code knowledge of such boundaries).  But in the
>> Directorate as well, there is no controversy about the /48 recommendation
>> for allocations to subscribers...

< ... snip ...>



Thanks for your earlier note, Brian.  I am hoping that it will be possible
for us to move this issue forward at the ARIN Public Policy meeting in April.




All:

I'd propose that, when we deal with the IPv6 allocation issue in the ARIN
Public Policy meeting, we focus on three distinct but interrelated issues,
all of which have come up in the various threads of this discussion:

1) the basic /48 recommendation;

2) the handling of the high order 48 bits;

3) assignment of /48 versus /64 (or /128) for dynamically assigned (e.g.
dial-up) users, in the absence of some demonstrated need for or interest in
subnetting.

Cheers,
- Scott


From plzak at arin.net  Wed Mar 21 15:38:04 2001
From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak)
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:38:04 -0500
Subject: FW: status of IPng addressing documents
Message-ID: <000101c0b246$d4a03d60$9b43de87@wireless.meeting.ietf.org>


To All:

FYI

Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-multi6 at ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-multi6 at ops.ietf.org]On
Behalf Of Thomas Narten
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 9:40 AM
To: multi6 at ops.ietf.org
Subject: FWD: status of IPng addressing documents


This may be of interest to those not on the ipng list.

Thomas

------- Forwarded Message

From: Thomas Narten <narten at hygro.adsl.duke.edu>
To: ipng at sunroof.eng.sun.com
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 21:54:08 -0500
Subject: status of IPng addressing documents

This note is to summarize some recent discussions concerning a number
of IPv6 documents and bring the WG up-to-date on a suggested plan of
action.

First, the IESG is currently discussing whether to advance
draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-04.txt (the original ID submitted to
the IESG) to draft standard. IESG discussions have resulted in
requests for two changes to the document:

a) Section 2.5.6 "Aggregatable Global Unicast Addresses" contains text
   and a diagram excerpted from a separate document, RFC 2374. That
   text is deemed inappropriate in a Draft Standard document because:

   - the described fields and their widths are not a fundamental part
     of the IPv6 architecture. Implementations do not (and should not)
     need to know the format of any of the fields, their widths, etc.
   - Putting them in the document can lead people to believe they are
     fundamental part of the architecture
   - The topic of RFC 2374 deals with that portion of address space that
     is managed by the RIRs, rather than the IETF (more on this
     below). 

IESG request: rework the discussion in Section 2.5.6 to make the
reference to RFC 2374 an example, to make it clear that the address
allocations and formats in RFC 2374 are not a part of the IPv6
architecture (i.e., have no implications for implementations).

b) The document makes reference to the format prefix (FP). There have
   been concerns raised that implementations may take the FP into
   consideration and treat addresses differently depending on their FP
   (i.e., FP 1 is assigned, while others are unassigned). But for
   future flexibility, it is important that all implementations
   process global unicast addresses consistently and predictably,
   regardless of what the FP is.

IESG request: strengthen/clarify wording in the document to make it
clear that all unassigned FPs are to be treated as global unicast
addresses. 

These requests are editorial in nature and are not expected to affect
the document in a way that impacts implementations. Once these changes
are made, the document is expected to be approved as a Draft Standard.

Note that version -05 appeared recently; it addresses most of the
issues raised. A -06 version, under preparation, is expected to
resolve the remaining issues.

While discussing the addressing architecture document, the IESG also
discussed RFC 2374. The WG originally asked that this document also be
advanced to Draft Standard a couple of years ago, but the IESG pushed
back wanting to see more experience. While the IPng WG has not
formally asked the IESG to advance this document at this time, there
is an assumption that such a request might come once the addressing
architecture document had been successfully advanced. Hence, the
preliminary discussion on RFC 2374.

The IESG has in previous discussion not had consensus on advancing RFC
RFC 2374 ("An IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format"). Over time
the specific issues have evolved, as the community has gained more
experience from IPv6 testbeds, the RIRs have begun handing out
addresses, etc. Some of the current issues that have been raised
include:

   - there is a lack of clear consensus in the community regarding the
     exact size of the various fields (TLA vs. NLA, etc.), how
     permanent the boundaries will be over time, etc. Boundaries that
     seem appropriate today, may be different in ten or twenty
     years. As an example, while the limitation of 8192 TLAs is viewed
     as a laudable goal, it is also not viewed as a hard architectural
     limit that can/will never change. If the boundaries are subject
     to change in the future, that argues against the document being
     advanced on the Standards Track to Draft status.
     
   - there is concern that it does not reflect the current practice of
     what the addressing registries (RIRs) are doing or will be doing
     over the next few years (again an argument against advancement to
     Draft Standard). For example, sub-TLAs are not defined in
     RFC 2374.

   - on matters of address allocations and assignments, the RIRs (and
     not the IETF) have responsibility for managing and assigning
     unicast address space to ISPs and end sites. Note that on issues
     of address boundaries, the further one moves from the right to
     the left within an address, the greater the role of the RIRs, and
     lesser the impact on the overall IPv6 architecture. For example,
     the IPv6 architecture clearly defines the /64 boundary.  But the
     /48 boundary is less clearly required by the architecture, though
     there are many technical reasons for having it.

     While the IETF can (and should) provide technical input to the
     RIRs on how to manage the IPv6 address space, it is the RIRs that
     ultimately adopt and execute allocation policies.  Consequently,
     the topic of RFC 2374 (specifically, the assignment and usage of
     the "routing part" of IPv6 addresses) is not really an
     appropriate Standards Track activity of the IETF. A more
     appropriate role for the IETF would be to provide input/advice to
     the registries, that focuses on technical aspects, especially
     those related to the overall IPv6 architecture. This could be
     done through an informational RFC, or possibly through some other
     means.
     
   - Because the RIRs are are the ones that carry out any
     recommendations the IETF might make, they need to be in agreement
     with those policies and incorporate them into their own formal
     policies. This argues for engaging the RIRs on the topic of
     address assignments and encouraging them to develop such policies
     in a cooperative manner with appropriate input from the IETF.

Summary: the IESG is unlikely to advance RFC 2374 on the standards
track in its current form, and recommends that the RIRs be approached
for their views on this topic and on what recommendations they have
for how best to cooperate on reaching a common goal -- that of
assigning addresses in a way that encourages deployment and supports
the IPv6 vision and architecture. Should the RIRs be willing to
formally take up this topic, it is expected (and imperative!) that the
IETF provide technical input.

Note that moving the policy component to the RIRs is not expected to
result in any change in current assignments and operations in the
short term, but one can expect assignment policy to evolve over
time. Any such changes would be the subject of extensive review by the
IETF and RIR communities.  The exact details of how to do this need to
be worked out through discussions between the IETF and RIRs.

A third document, draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommendations-00.txt
recently appeared. This document is a revised version of a statement
issued by the IESG/IAB in September, 2000. The focus of the document
is to provide a strong case that that the default IPv6 address
allocation to end sites should be a /48.  The reason for publishing
the document is to refine and clarify the statement and eventually
publish it as an informational RFC (i.e., for the historical
record). The purpose of this statement is to provide input to the
RIRs, as they formulate their IPv6 address assignment policies.

Thomas

------- End of Forwarded Message