[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current Issues in IPv6 Policy
Sorry for a late response - I was on vacation.
The case we have in Japan is a network with over 1M customers planning
to provide a new service(not a connection service) restricted only to
their existing customers. Since the customers have their own private
networks, it will lead to address duplication if the service provider
uses private addresses for their new service. Furthermore, they may be
connected to the global internet in the future to inter-connect their
customers with other ISPs. Although it is not a fixed plan, they wish
to avoid renumbering 1M customers if they decide to establish the
global connection.
I think this justifies their needs for globally unique addresses. What
do you think?
Izumi
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current Issues in IPv6 Policy
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:13:32 +0200
> Izumi,
>
> I think that it would be very interesting for the IETF discussion if
> you could give a short explanation of this need (in a form that can
> be discussed in public). One of the issues in the IETF debate is that
> not everybody agrees that there is a real need for local addresses.
>
> By the way, I think it is fine for the issue to be on your list;
> but until the IETF reaches a conclusion, it is hard to discuss policy,
> since there is no technical specification.
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
> Izumi Okutani wrote:
> >
> > I simply listed this since there is a specific need in Japan for a
> > closed network. I didn't conciously distinguish registry and IETF
> > issues. Thought it is worth the introduction as it will affect
> > registries once implemented.
> >
> > Izumi
> >
> > From: Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net>
> > Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current Issues in IPv6 Policy
> > Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:16:19 +1000
> >
> > > I believe it _could_ be a registry issue, but along the lines you
> > > are describing Brian, rather than a "should be allowed" question.
> > >
> > > http://www.apnic.net/meetings/16/programme/sigs/docs/policy/addpol-pres-huston-unique-local-ipv6-unicast-add.pdf
> > >
> > > describes some thinking about the local use proposal that was aired
> > > at the recent APNIC meeting
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Geoff
> > >
> > > At 04:26 PM 4/09/2003 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > >3-3-1 Define if address for closed networks should be allowed in IPv6
> > > >
> > > >I don't quite understand why this is a registry issue. It is in fact
> > > >the topic being vigorously debated in the IETF IPv6 WG at the moment
> > > >(under the general heading of local addresses). Once the IETF has
> > > >reached a technical conclusion, there may well be an IANA & RIR
> > > >issue, but not yet.
> > > >
> > > > Brian
> > > >
> > > >Izumi Okutani wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think there are a few more issues still (I don't think the list claims
> > > > > > to be all-inclusive of course :-), like:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - experimental allocations?!?
> > > > > > - allocations to "critical infrastructures" (whatever those might be)
> > > > > > - allocations to IX fabrics for non-routable addresses
> > > > > Thanks for the note, Pekka.
> > > > >
> > > > > These policies are already implemented in the AP region, but I assume
> > > > > they are under discussions in other regions? In anycase, I am
> > > > > interested to hear comments about them too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like this case, I am happy to add any other issues that happen to slip
> > > > > out of the list.
> > > > >
> > > > > > As a brief comment, the table may not really give enough context to know
> > > > > > which specific problem you're talking about in those cases (in many cases
> > > > > > it's more or less guessable, but not always)
> > > > > Yes, I see your point. I hope my presentation posted in APNIC meeting
> > > > > page gives you a better picture.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Summary of the current issues on IPv6 policy" (msword, mspowerpoint, pdf)
> > > > > http://www.apnic.net/meetings/16/programme/sigs/policy.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Izumi
> > > > >
> > > > > > HTH
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current Issues in IPv6 Policy
> > > > > > > Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 19:10:01 +0900
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sure, Mat.
> > > > > > > > I'll put it up on the web shortly and notify the URL once it's fixed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Izumi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: matthew.ford@bt.com
> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current Issues in IPv6 Policy
> > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 10:06:43 +0100
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Izumi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please make this list available on the web for those of us who
> > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > support your chosen filetype.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mat.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Izumi Okutani [mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp]
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: 01 September 2003 07:32
> > > > > > > > > > To: global-v6@lists.apnic.net
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current Issues in IPv6 Policy
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Attached is a summarised list of the current issues in IPv6
> > > > > > > > > > policy, based on
> > > > > > > > > > discussions in this ML & feebacks from the Japanese community.The
> > > > > > > > > > second(Comments) sheet quotes the actual comments related to
> > > > > > > > > > the issues.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I would love to hear your commnets on the issues listed,
> > > > > > > > > > especially those
> > > > > > > > > > categorised as priority "1". For example, one of the causes
> > > > of the
> > > > > > > > > > psychological barrier in initial allocations is
> > > > > > > > > > misunderstanding of the
> > > > > > > > > > intention of the criteria.APNIC regions will partly address
> > > > this by
> > > > > > > > > > developing a guidelines document, but perhaps, improving the
> > > > > > > > > > wordings in the
> > > > > > > > > > poicy is also worth considering.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Izumi
> > > > > > > > > > JPNIC
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > global-v6 mailing list
> > > > > > > global-v6@lists.apnic.net
> > > > > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> > > > > > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
> > > > > > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > global-v6 mailing list
> > > > > global-v6@lists.apnic.net
> > > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
>
> _______________________________________________
> global-v6 mailing list
> global-v6@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
>
