RE: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
Brian, My comment was regarding a head in the sand approach when it comes to the recurring themes that the developing world can't IP address space, whether it is v4 or v6. The fact is that they can get it from the RIR like those in the developed regions can get it from their RIRs. The real problem, in other words, putting head in sand, is to substitute this address space access issue for the real one of what can the recipients of the address space do with it when they get, particularly if they have no hardware to run it on, no electricity to power it, and no upstream willing to route it. It is those issues that need to be hit head on if the Internet is to really grow in the developing regions of the globe. Ray > -Original Message- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 4:39 PM > To: Ray Plzak > Cc: Tim Chown; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition > > Ray, > > I don't think it's quite fair to refer to ostriches > when ARIN is already on record: > http://www.arin.net/v6/v6-resolution.html > > Also, for those who like to see things in real time, > there's always http://penrose.uk6x.com/ > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > University of Auckland > > > > > On 2007-10-03 02:47, Ray Plzak wrote: > > Head in the sand is substituting the statement "shortage of IP > addresses" for the condition of the inability to use the addresses > (take your pick when it comes to infrastructure deficiencies). > > > > Ray > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:32 AM > >> To: ietf@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:05:39AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > >>> Ray Plzak wrote: > >>>> The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red > >> herring. > >>> that has to rank as one of the most bizarre statements that's ever > >> been > >>> made on the ietf list. > >> More of an ostrich than a herring? > >> > >> > >>.="""=._ > >> / ., .`. > >> /__(,_.-' || > >>`/||| > >>/ ||| > >> \||| > >> ~ ~ |\ ~~!)~~~ > >> > >> > >> Tim > >> > >> ___ > >> Ietf mailing list > >> Ietf@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > ___ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
Head in the sand is substituting the statement "shortage of IP addresses" for the condition of the inability to use the addresses (take your pick when it comes to infrastructure deficiencies). Ray > -Original Message- > From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:32 AM > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:05:39AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > > Ray Plzak wrote: > > > The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red > herring. > > that has to rank as one of the most bizarre statements that's ever > been > > made on the ietf list. > > More of an ostrich than a herring? > > >.="""=._ > / ., .`. > /__(,_.-' || >`/||| >/ ||| > \||| > ~ ~ |\ ~~!)~~~ > > > Tim > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
should have been "is" > -Original Message- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:06 AM > To: Ray Plzak > Cc: philemon; Hannes Tschofenig; Stephen Sprunk; ietf@ietf.org; Paul > Hoffman > Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition > > Ray Plzak wrote: > > The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red > herring. > that has to rank as one of the most bizarre statements that's ever been > made on the ietf list. > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
The shortage of IPv4 addresses in developing countries in a red herring. All one has to do is apply for them from the RIR. Getting a service provider to route them is a different problem, especially when they profit from running your traffic through their NAT. Ray > -Original Message- > From: philemon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 6:40 AM > To: Hannes Tschofenig; Keith Moore > Cc: Stephen Sprunk; ietf@ietf.org; Paul Hoffman > Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition > > Hi All > > > > Just an input about the NAT issue handled here. The 'war' against NAT > is > senseless before succeeding the one against IPv4. I mean, as far as the > v4 > protocol runs on our networks, NAT will remain as a useful tool for > those > who need it, of course for specific applications. In developing > countries > for example where IPv6 entry is very slow -add to a scarcity of IPv4 > addresses- we are always using NAT, and are happy to do so as: > > 1- No enough IPv4 addresses > > 2-No need for the specific applications for those networks > > 3-No alternative solution currently 'in the hands'. > > > > Thanks > > > > Philemon > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ; "Paul > Hoffman" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 9:11 PM > Subject: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition > > > > Hi Keith, > > > > Keith Moore wrote: > >>> Most application protocols work just fine behind NAT. FTP works > with > >>> an ugly work-around. The main protocol that breaks down is SIP. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> there are a couple of problems with this analysis: > >> > >> one is that it considers only application protocols that are in > >> widespread use. there are lots of applications that are used by > limited > >> communities that are nevertheless important. > > > > Namely? > > > > > >> and of course, since NATs > >> are so pervasive, most of the applications that are in widespread > use > >> have been made to work with NAT (often at tremendous expense, and > >> reduced reliability). > >> > > Could you explain the tremendous expense a bit more? > > > > > >> another problem is that it only considers current applications. a > big > >> part of the problem with NAT is that it inhibits the > >> development/deployment of useful new applications. > >> > > > > As Phillip stated, I don't see the problem with future applications. > > Compare this with the security aspects that are taken care of much > more > > than before when developing new applications NAT traversal is just > another > > thing to think about as a protocol designer. > > > > Ciao > > Hannes > > > >> Keith > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> Ietf mailing list > >> Ietf@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > >> > > > > > > ___ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IPv6 RIR policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all]
You certainly wouldn't be the first to so argue, and I guarantee you wouldn't be the last. My point is if you don't say something on the PPML then you will be depriving the Internet community in the ARIN region of your insight and technical expertise, a case in which everyone stands to lose -- you and the ARIN community. As far as the other RIR communities are concerned, persons in all 5 RIR service regions tend to be observant of the discussions in each other's community, so you would be reaching more than just ARIN. The choice is yours, Ray > -Original Message- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 3:52 PM > To: Ray Plzak > Cc: Bob Braden; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 RIR policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce > after all] > > Ray Plzak wrote: > > If you think that way, then why don't you say so on the ARIN Public > Policy Mailing List where such a comment needs to be heard. Discussion > about ARIN policy on this list will not influence the policy process. > > > I think the message needs to come from IETF that this isn't something > the RIRs should consider within their purview. > > I could argue within ARIN that ARIN's policies are harmful etc., but > that's sort of besides the point. And of course it's not just ARIN > that > we should be concerned with. > > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IPv6 RIR policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all]
If you think that way, then why don't you say so on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List where such a comment needs to be heard. Discussion about ARIN policy on this list will not influence the policy process. Ray > -Original Message- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:58 PM > To: Bob Braden > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 RIR policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce > after all] > > Bob Braden wrote: > > In this whole discussion, I find it hard to keep separate the > > technical issues, about which the IETF should care a lot, from > > the business model and issues, about which the IETF should be > > agnostic. We may personally care a great deal about the business > > issues, but we cannot speak as an organization about them. > > > well, mumble. we shouldn't be biased toward any particular business > model. but there's nothing wrong with being biased towards > flexibility, > or being biased against the RIRs changing IETF decisions to favor a > particular business model. > > again, the fundamental problem here is that the RIRs are trying to > second-guess IETF design decisions. > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
> > > The US DoC has as much say for ARIN as it does for the RIPE NCC. > > The US DoC, through IANA functions, says, e.g., what IP Address blocks > each can allocate. That seems to qualify as 'much say' > Didn't say how much say, just said that whatever say it had for ARIN it was the same as it had for the RIPE NCC. > You seem to be confusing delegation of authority with loss of > authority. > The DoC has contracted the IANA function to ICANN and doesn't involve > itself much, and ultimately plans to get out altogether. However, the > IANA operator (ICANN) then has 'much say'. But the DoC 'get out > altogether' event hasn't happened yet. So you can't write out the DoC > just yet. > Don't how you arrived at that conclusion based on a casual observation. Not writing them out, don't know how you got that. > > The RIRs existed before ICANN. The relationship between the RIRs and > > ICANN is defined in the ASO MoU, an agreement between ICANN on the > one > > hand and the NRO on behalf of the RIRs on the other. There is no > > mention in the ICANN bylaws of the RIRs. > > The fallacy of this claim was already stated: What is false about those statements? RIRs get their authority > and IP Address Allocations, etc from IANA. The fact that RIRs existed > before ICANN is irrelevant, because IANA existed before the RIRs. And, > as I noted, IANA functions are now contracted to ICANN. Technically, it > is in fact the IANA (not ICANN) that has direct control over RIRs. But, > as I pointed out, ICANN has full control over IANA functions by > contract > with the US Government. And, as I pointed out, the IETF is a technical > consultant to ICANN. The MoUs are just that: Memoranda of > Understanding. > MoUs can be terminated, and don't supercede the contracts with the US > Government. > Never intimated anything about authority lines or derivation of authority, just pointing out some of the factors in the relationship between ICANN and the RIRs. Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
The US DoC has as much say for ARIN as it does for the RIPE NCC. The RIRs existed before ICANN. The relationship between the RIRs and ICANN is defined in the ASO MoU, an agreement between ICANN on the one hand and the NRO on behalf of the RIRs on the other. There is no mention in the ICANN bylaws of the RIRs. Ray > -Original Message- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:40 AM > To: Dean Anderson > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and > do their own thing? > > Hi, > > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 03:04:19PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: > [..] > > ICANN can end the MoU at any time, and find a new technical > consultant. > > The IETF can also end the MoU at any time. But the IETF doesn't have > the > > authority to appoint a new IANA operator. > [..] > > The RIR's can do whatever ICANN and the US Government allow them to > do. > > The IETF _can_ be taken out of the picture if there is cause to do > so. > > Not quite. If ICANN decides "we won't listen to IETF anymore", or "we > try to inforce non-useful politics to the RIRs" there is no big reason > why the RIRs couldn't just kick ICANN, install the NRO in its place, > and > change the structure to > > IETF -> NRO -> RIRs > > Remember: the existing mechanism works, because the communities (!!) > agree > that it's a useful way to handle address distribution. > > The US DoC might have some say for ARIN, but the rest of the world > couldn't care less - and I'm sure that the DoC is well aware of this > and > won't try to break apart working structures. > > So this is all sort of academic. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 > > SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- > Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates
Why should AfriNIC be considered any less of an RIR than the other APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, or RIPE NCC(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? Why should AFNOG be considered any less of an operator's forum than NANOG or EOF(meeting is at RIPE meeting)? We are talking about an entire continent. It seems to me in this case that the priority should be equality of treatment based on the function being performed for a region and not any other perceived reason for inequity. Or doesn't the IETF care about the Internet in the developing regions of the world? Ray > -Original Message- > From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:53 AM > To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates > > yOn Fri, 24 Mar 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > > Hi Ray, > > > > I know is difficult already to manage to avoid clashes, but I think is > > unfair and discriminatory to have all the RIRs and *NOGs in the MUST NOT > > list, but AfriNIC, AfNOG and SANOG in the other list. > > having attended two of three I would simply observe that the overlap > between the two communites is a little lower. also. having attended every > afnog meeting, it hasn't yet clashed with the ietf. You have to have some > priorities. > > > Anticipating for so many years is good enough to allow all those > > organizations to chat together and make sure the there is not a clash, > not > > just in the exact dates, but allowing a few days in between (if they are > > hosted in different places of the world) to allow traveling among them, > > which has not been the case up to now all the time. > > > > Regards, > > Jordi > > > > > > > > > >> De: Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Fecha: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:41:48 -0500 > >> Para: "ietf@ietf.org" > >> Asunto: Proposed 2008 - 2010 IETF Meeting dates > >> > >> The IETF is proposing dates for its meetings being held 2008 through > >> 2010. Those dates can be found at > >> http://www.ietf.org/meetings/future_meetings0810.html > >> > >> The dates will be evaluated and selected to meet the IETF's standards > >> development objectives, while avoiding conflicts with SDOs and other > >> organizations to the extent possible. Those organizations can be found > >> on the Clash List from the same url. > >> > >> Comments regarding these dates should be addressed to the IAD at > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> It is anticipated that an official IETF Meeting Calendar for 2008 - > 2010 > >> will be formally adopted on April 20, 2006 by the IAOC. > >> > >> Regards > >> Ray Pelletier > >> IAD > >> > >> ___ > >> Ietf mailing list > >> Ietf@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > > > > > ** > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > -- > -- > Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2 > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Bruce Campbell > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 5:00 AM > To: todd glassey > Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Christian Huitema; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers > > > ( But theres still a lot more than just 700 people who > participate in the > IETF ) > > --==-- > Bruce. There are certainly more than 700 who attend. I don't know if you can characterize them as all participating. Ray
RE: accusations of cluelessness
For those who wish to become involved in the policy process or view the archives: http://www.apnic.net/community/lists/index.html http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html http://lacnic.net/en/discussion_boards.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/about/maillists.html Ray > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Ray Plzak > Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 10:09 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: accusations of cluelessness > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Keith Moore > > Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 1:25 AM > > To: Scott Bradner > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: accusations of cluelessness > > > > > > > Just what would you suggest in the way of relaxing? > > > > since I view this as a hypothetical situation anyway (and one > > that isn't > > likely to happen in the real world) I don't think it's > > necessary to pin down > > exactly how they'd go about relaxing the criteria - only to > > realize that it is > > possible to relax those criteria > > There are currently several discussions in the ARIN region regarding > IPv4 allocations both in regard to minimum size and criteria. > Discussions about IPv4 policy and IPv6 policy are of a > contiuous nature > in all of the RIRs reflecting changes in the operational community. > > Ray > >
RE: accusations of cluelessness
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Keith Moore > Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 1:25 AM > To: Scott Bradner > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: accusations of cluelessness > > > > Just what would you suggest in the way of relaxing? > > since I view this as a hypothetical situation anyway (and one > that isn't > likely to happen in the real world) I don't think it's > necessary to pin down > exactly how they'd go about relaxing the criteria - only to > realize that it is > possible to relax those criteria There are currently several discussions in the ARIN region regarding IPv4 allocations both in regard to minimum size and criteria. Discussions about IPv4 policy and IPv6 policy are of a contiuous nature in all of the RIRs reflecting changes in the operational community. Ray
