Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Global IPv6 PI policy proposal

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Hi Per,

May be what we are missing them is a way, or an organization, which can
enforce routing rules.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Per Heldal <heldal@eml.cc>
> Responder a: <global-v6-bounces@lists.apnic.net>
> Fecha: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 00:55:21 +0200
> Para: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
> CC: "global-v6@lists.apnic.net" <global-v6@lists.apnic.net>
> Asunto: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Global IPv6 PI policy proposal
> 
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 18:40:01 +0200, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"
> <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> said:
>> 
>> Following that approach, if we agree on a /48, some folks could decide to
>> deaggregate it to /56 or whatever, and announce it. I think we need clear
>> rules to avoid people deaggregating, and I will say nothing smaller than
>> /32
>> should be announced.
> 
> There are no enforceable rules. RIRs can only publish a set of
> prefix-filtering-recommendations to accompany their assignment-policies.
> (which should exactly match the size of blocks assigned unless you want
> to allow room for de-aggregation).
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>> 
>>> My recommendation is that a /16 be set aside out of each RIR's
>>> address reserve for PI assignments to smiplify filtering.
>> 
>> Yes, whatever figure is needed, I will agree on that.
> 
> Size doesn't matter, just make sure assignment-windows and
> filtering-guidelines are clear and consistent.
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Expiry for those assignments: In the case of assignments done under this
>>>> proposal in order to address the multihoming issue, they will need to
>>>> return
>>>> the block in a maximum period of 3 years after a technically correct
>>>> alternative valid and deployable solution becomes accepted by the
>>>> community.
>>>> Alternatively, to avoid renumbering, some of the organizations affected by
>>>> this, could become an LIR, if they qualify for it.
>>> 
>>> Any attempts to reclaim address space by force could be difficult,
>>> expensive and disruptive.  "Temporary" assignments also discourageuse by
>>> large organizations. Even with the LIR conversion option it
>>> sounds like there is too much uncertainty for a large org to make
>>> a commitment to IPv6.
>> 
>> I don't agree that this is the case here:
>> 1) Is better to be subjected to one renumbering in several years than if
>> those organizations need to renumber every time they decide to change
>> their
>> upstream.
> 
> What organizations want is predictability, hence ability to have
> reliable planning. Periodic changes in tech-areas are generally
> accepted, even expected. Given a notice-period of X-years that shouldn't
> be much of a problem.
> 
> New routing-technology for MH must be supplemented by tools to
> support/simplify re-numbering and other administrative issues before it
> is accepted as a replacement for PI-blocks. That is both a relevant
> criteria when the decision is to be made, as well as an important
> argument in favor of making it a viable policy/procedure.
> 
> 
> //per
> -- 
>   Per Heldal
>   http://heldal.eml.cc/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> global-v6 mailing list
> global-v6@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

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.