RE: [hm-staff] Re: The list of current Issues in IPv6 Policy

Brian,

In regard to the IETF solution compatability, I agree with you 100%.  I
hope the IETF solution is something other than what I've seen in recent
IDs concerning local addresses.  Because the current policy does not
provide for private network space is why ARIN has not allocated or
assigned any IPv6 space for requested private or closed network use.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian E 
> Carpenter
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 10:27 AM
> To: Ray Plzak
> Cc: 'Izumi Okutani'; [email protected]; [email protected]; 
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [hm-staff] Re: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current 
> Issues in IPv6 Policy
> 
> 
> Ray,
> 
> However, one should tread carefully. Although nobody wants to 
> repeat the
> RFC 1918 experiment of creating ambiguous address space with 
> all its problems,
> there is very active discussion in the IETF of what the 
> solution should be.
> If the RIRs do start allocating space from 2001::/16 for 
> "closed" networks,
> there is a risk of incompatibility with the as yet unknown 
> IETF solution.
> 
>    Brian
> 
> Ray Plzak wrote:
> > 
> > It is clear from the policy criteria that the policy was 
> meant for the
> > RIRs to only provide /32 to transit providers.  No 
> discussion was done
> > about private networks as the RFC 1918 concept was not to apply.  It
> > would appear to me that there needs to be a policy proposal 
> to address
> > the private network issue in which globally unique private 
> addresses are
> > required for networks using IPv6.
> > 
> > Ray
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected]
> > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
> Izumi Okutani
> > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 4:23 AM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Cc: gih-pWIpc5MZKA/[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [hm-staff] Re: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current
> > > Issues in IPv6 Policy
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for your comment and sharing APNIC's position, Son.
> > >
> > > It would be nice to learn the situation in other regions too.  I
> > > assume RIRs are working very closely in request 
> evaluation as well,
> > > but perhaps, we need further discussions if the situation 
> differs by
> > > regions?
> > >
> > > Izumi
> > >
> > > From: John Tran <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: Re: [hm-staff] Re: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current
> > > Issues in IPv6
> > >  Policy
> > > Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:41:53 +1000 (EST)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > hi Izumi,
> > > >
> > > > APNIC currently allocates IPv6 addresses to 
> organisations that have
> > > > private 'closed' networks. We recognise that this is 
> not documented
> > > > in the current policy and agree that there should be a
> > > clause to cover
> > > > this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Son
> > > >
> > > > APNIC
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: Geoff Huston <gih-pWIpc5MZKA/[email protected]>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6]The list of current Issues in 
> IPv6 Policy
> > > > > Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:11:58 +1000
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >I'm wondering how we can proceed from here. Is it just
> > > a matter of
> > > > > > >confirming the actual situation with the RIRs, or do
> > > we need another
> > > > > > >process to confirm the interpretation?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Personally I would suggest that it may be worth an
> > > effort to formally
> > > > > > amend the policy and specifically include criteria 
> for access to
> > > > > > IPv6 address blocks from the RIR or NIR as a PI
> > > allocation without
> > > > > > a need for announcement for such blocks on the 
> global Internet
> > > > > > (which is what I infer from your description of a
> > > 'closed' network)
> > > > > Thanks for the suggestion.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wasn't sure if this is considered as a matter of
> > > interpretation or
> > > > > the policy amendment, but since it's an undefined area, I
> > > agree, we
> > > > > should go through a formal process.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Izumi
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > global-v6 mailing list
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Hostmaster-staff mailing list
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/hostmaster-staff
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > global-v6 mailing list
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > global-v6 mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
> > >
> 
> -- 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Brian E Carpenter 
> Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
> 
> NEW ADDRESS <[email protected]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK
> 
> _______________________________________________
> global-v6 mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
> 

_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6