Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
Michael, [ stripping out a lot of content to just say what I want to say... ] On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 10:38:11AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At this point, I think it is inappropriate to continue the Central > ULA discussion on the RIR policy lists. Agreed. > In fact, if any policy were to come out of such a discussion, I > would vote against it [...] Me too (well, the RIPE region doesn't vote on policies, but rather say I would oppose Central ULA proposals). -- Shane ___ 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' So it seems that you and Ray are in agreement. All the other details are not terribly relevant to RIR policy discussions because we have processes and structures to make sure that everything is done properly. We have no plans to change any of the structures because at the present time, they seem to work OK. As for the matter that started this, central ULAs, there is not need to worry about who controls what. The fact is that it is customary for new address types to be defined *FIRST* in the IETF and even if there is the possibility of an alternate process, we would not dream of exercising that unless the customary process, via the IETF, had broken down. The IETF process cannot be considered broken just because a draft has expired. In fact, expiry of a draft indicates that the original authors no longer care enough about the matter to progress it further. The WG chair of IPv6 Operations has already offered the v6ops list http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/v6ops-charter.html For those people who *DO* wish to progress a draft for Central ULA addresses. This is a sign that the IETF process is open for business in this case. At this point, I think it is inappropriate to continue the Central ULA discussion on the RIR policy lists. In fact, if any policy were to come out of such a discussion, I would vote against it even though my company could potentially benefit from something like a Central ULA address block. But at the same time, my company supports the IETF process in general and I don't believe we would want to be perceived as usurping the IETF. That is why I would vote against any policy proposal that is not based on an RFC. I urge all of you who have an interest in Central ULA addresses, both pro and con, to take your discussion to the v6ops list. And I urge the people in favour of Central ULA addresses to write an Internet draft explaining just what it is that you want to do. At this point in time, there is no valid draft document so I don't even know what it is that you are discussing. --Michael Dillon ___ 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: [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
Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
Brian, On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 01:34:31PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2007-05-11 23:32, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > > >The RIRs don't depend on IETF at all, they can define global > >policies for things that the IETF failed to complete if that's the > >case. IANA can be instructed the same by the RIRs (which a global > >policy) than by the IETF itself with an RFC. > > Not quite. The RIRs have authority delegated to them by IANA, and > IANA operates under the terms of its MoU and SLA with the IETF. So > the RIRs' scope is to set and implement policy within their > delegated authority, which itself has to be within the terms of the > IANA MoU and SLA. The RIRs authority comes from their communities, not from IANA. That's what "bottom-up" means. Many industries need a neutral organisation to do business. Airlines have a system to handle reservations. Many industries use the ISO to set standards (paint colour, carpet thickness, and so on). Universities have accreditation bodies to insure a certain quality of education. And so on. The ISPs of the world need someone to handle resource allocation. The RIRs do that. They also do a bunch of other stuff. Really, the RIRs' scope is whatever their communities think it should be. If the RIRs decide to allocate numbers from dead:beef::/32 based on lunar tides, then the IETF and IANA and ICANN can complain about it all day long, but it's not their decision to make. Of course they can participate in the policy making process like everyone else. :) -- Shane ___ 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?
On 2007-05-14 16:08, Shane Kerr wrote: Brian, On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 01:34:31PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2007-05-11 23:32, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: The RIRs don't depend on IETF at all, they can define global policies for things that the IETF failed to complete if that's the case. IANA can be instructed the same by the RIRs (which a global policy) than by the IETF itself with an RFC. Not quite. The RIRs have authority delegated to them by IANA, and IANA operates under the terms of its MoU and SLA with the IETF. So the RIRs' scope is to set and implement policy within their delegated authority, which itself has to be within the terms of the IANA MoU and SLA. The RIRs authority comes from their communities, not from IANA. That's what "bottom-up" means. We're both right. It works because there is a wide consensus to both listen to the community and respect the mechanisms in place. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
Thus spake "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fred, the point is that ULAs should be unambiguous, so that if they happen to meet (e.g. via a VPN, or following a merge of two previously separate networks) there is no collision. Currently ULAs include a pseudo-random prefix, which leaves open a theoretical possibility of collision. Centrally-allocated ULAs would not have this issue. The chance is negligible until you have a number of organizations interconnecting that approaches the AS count on the public Internet. Those who are uncomfortable with those odds can get PIv6 space. ULA Central does not solve any problems that the existing tools already solve, and it creates new problems of its own. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
On 2007-05-11 16:14, Fred Baker wrote: ... One technical question I would ask. What does a "Central Authority" and "IANA Assignment" have to do with a "Local" address of any type? It seems in context that the major issue is an address prefix that is not advertised to neighboring ISPs and can be generally configured to be refused if offered by a neighboring ISP, in the same way that an RFC 1918 address is not advertised and is generally refused between IPv4 networks. In any draft on this topic, regardless of where it is discussed, if central assignment is in view, the reason for having such assignment should be clearly stated. Fred, the point is that ULAs should be unambiguous, so that if they happen to meet (e.g. via a VPN, or following a merge of two previously separate networks) there is no collision. Currently ULAs include a pseudo-random prefix, which leaves open a theoretical possibility of collision. Centrally-allocated ULAs would not have this issue. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
On 2007-05-11 23:32, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: I've already indicated this in previous occasions, but may be not in ppml ... We are proceeding in parallel, with the ID and the PDP at the same time. Nothing in the PDP precludes doing so. The RIRs don't depend on IETF at all, they can define global policies for things that the IETF failed to complete if that's the case. IANA can be instructed the same by the RIRs (which a global policy) than by the IETF itself with an RFC. Not quite. The RIRs have authority delegated to them by IANA, and IANA operates under the terms of its MoU and SLA with the IETF. So the RIRs' scope is to set and implement policy within their delegated authority, which itself has to be within the terms of the IANA MoU and SLA. In this case, I would check out section 4.3 of RFC 2860, especially the clause (b) in the second paragraph. It's clear to me that centrally- allocated ULAs are in IETF scope under that clause. That being said, there's no conceivable problem with a draft being developed by any set of people that want to do so, and the RIR people are obviously strongly motivated to do so in this case. (Personally, I see little need for it, since the existing pseudo-random ULAs are good enough for any practical purpose, but that is a discussion we can have in the IETF once there is a draft to discuss.) Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
I've already indicated this in previous occasions, but may be not in ppml ... We are proceeding in parallel, with the ID and the PDP at the same time. Nothing in the PDP precludes doing so. The RIRs don't depend on IETF at all, they can define global policies for things that the IETF failed to complete if that's the case. IANA can be instructed the same by the RIRs (which a global policy) than by the IETF itself with an RFC. Even when the IETF get the document as an RFC, the RIRs need a policy (in this case no need for a global one) to start using the resource. That's why both things are needed. The boards of the RIRs, if the policy reach consensus, should hold the implementation until the RFC is available or instead, a global policy reach consensus to replace the function of the RFC. This is something that it is natural to be done, but again, doesn't preclude to start debating about the policy and win some time. If anyone want to discuss about the ULA-central ID, I encourage to bring that discussion to the ipv6 WG mailing list, no need to create a new one. For discussions about the policy proposal, use the corresponding RIR mail exploder. Regards, Jordi > De: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Fri, 11 May 2007 14:35:25 +0100 > Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Conversación: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing? > Asunto: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing? > >> If the draft RFC was resurrected > >> Would you still think this was an end-run on the RIR process? >> >> Would you be in support of the draft moving forward? > > Seems to me that if the draft is not resurrected, there are no ULA > addresses for ARIN or RIPE to register, regardless of anything that ARIN > or RIPE members might desire. > >> If you prefer the RIR process, would you be in favor of a global > policy >> submitted to ARIN that had the provisions of the expired ULA-central >> draft, with the modification of removing "cental authority" and > clearly >> designating how IANA should divide the space among the existing RIRs? > > Seems to me that the NRO requires that identical policies be PASSED by > all of the RIRs before they can be considered "global policy". This is > an area where it makes a whole lot of sense to have discussions on > several RIR mailing lists before ANY policy proposal is submitted to ANY > of the 5 RIRs. > > I'm not going to quibble with the wording of the draft at this point. I > just wonder whether it is appropriate for the RIR mailing lists to be > used as a working group for writing Internet drafts? It seems to be a > stupid way to proceed because there are at least 5 different mailing > lists involved, one of which is primarily in Spanish. Crossposting is > not a solution. > > If people are serious about this central ULA concept then they should > get ONE of the RIRs to set up a working group (RIPE would be my first > choice, ARIN second) and then have all of this discussion in that > working group mailing list. People from all of the 5 RIRs should be > invited to the working group by official RIR postings to whatever lists > are appropriate. Some RIRs have announcement lists for such things or > members-only lists to ensure that the word gets out. Then draft the > document in your ONE SINGLE mailing list discussion, submit it to the > IETF, and only then, after an agreed draft is formally in the IETF > pipeline, submit your global policy proposals to each of the RIRs. > > The way this is being done right now is pure madness and I would expect > that the RIR boards will reject any policies that arise through this > UNFAIR AND DISJOINTED process. We have always allowed the IETF to take > first place when it comes to creating new number resources. There is no > good reason to change this for so-called central-ULA addresses. We do > need the technical expertise that is in the IETF to review this before > we can make any kind of policy decisions about a registry for these > addresses. > > I know many people on the RIR policy lists are technical experts, but > that doesn't count, because these are policy lists, not technical ones. > It is one thing for a few technical people to convince a large number of > non-technical people about a topic. It is another thing entirely, for > those few technical people to convince the large number of technical > people who participate in the IETF. It seems to me that the promoters of > central-ULA are trying to bypass the IETF's technical review process and > I don't like this. > > --Michael Dillon > > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to
Re: Can the RIRs bypass the IETF and do their own thing?
On May 11, 2007, at 6:35 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm not going to quibble with the wording of the draft at this point. I just wonder whether it is appropriate for the RIR mailing lists to be used as a working group for writing Internet drafts? I don't see why not, but... In your email, you noted the disjoint nature of the RIRs and the need to cross-post or whatever. Speaking as chair of IPv6 Operations ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), I would invite you and all those interested in the effort to use the v6ops list for the purpose and the v6ops working group as a venue to do the work. If you would like, we can arrange a v6ops interim meeting at the RIR meeting of your choice, or it could be discussed in the currently-planned meeting in the third week of July in Chicago. One technical question I would ask. What does a "Central Authority" and "IANA Assignment" have to do with a "Local" address of any type? It seems in context that the major issue is an address prefix that is not advertised to neighboring ISPs and can be generally configured to be refused if offered by a neighboring ISP, in the same way that an RFC 1918 address is not advertised and is generally refused between IPv4 networks. In any draft on this topic, regardless of where it is discussed, if central assignment is in view, the reason for having such assignment should be clearly stated. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
