[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?
I agree.
Paul.
>
> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> global-v6 mailing list
> global-v6@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/glob> al-v6
>
