[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current Issues in IPv6 Policy
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current Issues in IPv6 Policy
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:05:18 +0300 (EEST)
> > 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 would say that this qualifies them to get 1M regular, no-frills, LIR
> addresses from APNIC. I see zero need for any kind of local addresses
> (which was what Brian was asking, I think).
>
> Nothing prevents you from *not* routing those addresses on the
> Internet? Unless of course it's a problem in the global-v6 policy, which
> should then be reviewed.
I see. If it is accomodated in the global policy, then I suppose it is
more of an operational issue than the policy. I just wasn't sure, so
I'm glad to confirm this. In that case, there are no needs for a
special "local address" for this particular case.
Could I assume that it will be eligible for LIR addresses from RIRs
for similar cases in the future? In other words, either
a) closed intra-network which must avoid address duplicates
OR/AND
b) closed network which has a possiblity of the global connection but
no fixed plan
If the answer is yes, I thought it would be helpful to have it
documented somewhere, either in the policy or in some other form.
Izumi
> >
> > 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
> > >
> >
>
> --
> 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
>
