Subject: [v6ops] Reposting this draft

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 20:13:55 +0900

We would like to go to working group last call on draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-48boundary on 27 September; that poses a problem, as draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary has not yet been reposted as a working group draft. Could you please repost during the coming two weeks?

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:21:20 -0700

whatever its name, i do have a problem with this draft.  it says

    "The exact choice of how much address space to assign end sites is a
     policy issue under the purview of the RIRs"

this is not the case in v4 or v6.  the rirs may make recommendations.
it is the operator's decision how to manage ip space assigned to
customers.

randy

---

From: Nicolas Antoniello <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:25:07 -0300

+1

Regards,
Nicolas

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 14:21, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:59:12 -0700

> it is the operator's decision how to manage ip space assigned to

not to just whine, but to try to suggest an approach.

  The exact choice of how much address space to assign end sites is an
  issue for the operational community.

randy

---

From: Nicolas Antoniello <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:27:19 -0300

This reminds me the issue when in most RIRs, regarding the "Initial IPv6
allocation policies" the community removed from policies some technical
issues like the imposition to publish the whole allocation in a single
aggregated block.

Some of us, for example, may think that giving out a /64 for a WAN it's just
too much waste ... but still, a technical and operations decision.

It's BCPs what we have, to do such recommendations.

nicolas

---

From: Sander Steffann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:27:55 +0200

+1

Sander

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 08:27:58 +1200

>   issue for the operational community.

I agree, although it would be factually correct to add that suggested
guidelines are discussed by the RIR community.

     Brian

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:32:48 -0700

No. RIRs != ops community. Though there is non-trivial intersection. 

randy, on iPhone

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:34:16 +0000

> guidelines are discussed by the RIR community.

	they are also disucssed by the state community, the law enforcement
	community and others.  the operational  community is the one that
	matters.

--bill

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:05:26 -0700

>   Is your intent to say that this is an issue for the operational
>   community to discuss and come to a recommendation, or that this
>   is an issue that each operator must determine individually?

it is my intent to say that it is not an issue for the ietf community to
discuss and come to a recommendation.

randy

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 08:34:09 +0900

Given that the IETF has already given a recommendation and the operator community has rightly questioned it, it seems appropriate for the IETF to
  - state that it has reconsidered its recommendation
  - say what considerations it thinks are important in such matters

Yes, "how to operate the network" is certainly for the operational community to decide. It would seem very curious to say "nobody else is even allowed to have an opinion".

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:48:13 -0700

> discuss and come to a recommendation.

In the abstract there is this:

    This document revisits and updates the RFC 3177 recommendations on
    the assignment of IPv6 address space to end sites.  The exact choice
    of how much address space to assign end sites is a policy issue under
    the purview of the RIRs, subject to IPv6 architectural and
    operational considerations. This document reviews the architectural
    and operational considerations of end site assignments as well as the
    motivations behind the original 3177 recommendations.

At the end of Section 1 (Introduction) is this:

    This document does not make a formal recommendation on what the exact
    assignment size should be.  The exact choice of how much address
    space to assign end sites is a policy issue under the purview of the
    RIRs, subject to IPv6 architectural and operational considerations.
    This document provides input into those discussions.

How about replacing the sentence beginning with, "The exact choice ..." 
with this, which I think would fit in both places:

The IETF role in the choice of how much address space should be assigned 
to end sites is limited to providing guidance on IPv6 architectural and 
operational considerations.

The offensive sentence was also repeated in Section 5 (Summary) where it 
can simply be removed.

One other editorial note, in Section 2 there is a parenthetical that 
contains more than one sentence, which is badly grammar. :)  The parens 
should just be removed.

Otherwise I think the document looks good.

hth,

Doug (Seriously? 3 times?)

-- 

	... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
			-- Propellerheads

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/

---

From: "YangGL" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 08:41:27 +0800

I think this issue of address space should be discuss in IETF first. The
guidelines from IETF will be a suggestion, but form RIRs, will be a policy.
It is different.

Best regards,
Yang Guoliang

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 4:28 AM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Reposting this draft

     Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 16:24:15 +1200

Actually, I don't agree. The IETF can certainly analyse
the options; the RIRs can (and do) act as a discussion forum,
which was what my text tried to recognise, but it is definitely
individual operators that set their own policies for end-user
prefixes.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:26:59 -0700

> Given that the IETF has already given a recommendation and the
> operator community has rightly questioned it, it seems appropriate for
> the IETF to 

agree

> Yes, "how to operate the network" is certainly for the operational
> community to decide. It would seem very curious to say "nobody else is
> even allowed to have an opinion".

the problem arises when opinions which are in rfcs can be pushed as laws
by those with agendas.  hence, careful wording which makes very clear
that 'things you should consider' are couched as such.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:27:44 -0700

> I think this issue of address space should be discuss in IETF first.

been there.  done that.  now we're cleaning up the mess we made.

randy

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:19:59 -0400

> not to just whine, but to try to suggest an approach.

Thanks!

>  issue for the operational community.

Randy - 

/John

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:41:09 +0200

Le 11 sept. 2010 à 01:48, Doug Barton a écrit :

> How about replacing the sentence beginning with, "The exact choice ..." with this, which I think would fit in both places:
> 
> The IETF role in the choice of how much address space should be assigned to end sites is limited to providing guidance on IPv6 architectural and operational considerations.

+1 for the approach.

Minor point: it would IMHO be even better with something added in line with Randy's proposal, e.g.:
"The final choice belongs to the operational community."

Regards,
RD

> 
> The offensive sentence was also repeated in Section 5 (Summary) where it can simply be removed.
> 
> One other editorial note, in Section 2 there is a parenthetical that contains more than one sentence, which is badly grammar. :)  The parens should just be removed.
>