[Nlnog] FW: [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02

[Erik Bais]

Hi NLNOG,

Bij deze een forward van een email op de RIPE AP WG maillist.

Ik ben zelf een van de 2 personen die het voorstel gemaakt heeft voor policy 2011-02 ( Removal of the Multi-homing requirement voor IPv6 PI )

Een aantal van jullie hebben al geduren de verschillende fases van het PDP process bij RIPE hun support uitgesproken voor het voorstel, maar het lijkt dus dat dit nog een keer nodig is.

Het voorstel is hier te vinden :
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02

Als je het eens bent met voorstel en dat er een rough consensus is, zou het prettig zijn als je dat (wellicht nogmaals) zou willen vertellen op de maillijst.  (address-policy-wg at ripe.net )

Bvd,
Erik Bais



-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
Sent: donderdag 8 december 2011 22:13
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02

Dear AP WG,

2011-02 has been a difficult one, and you have noticed the lack of visible progress.  So let us explain, and propose a way forward.

The RIPE policy development process calls for "consensus" to make policy from policy proposals.  Sometimes it's very clear if consensus has been reached, and sometimes it's very clear that consensus has NOT been reached.

When looking for consensus, we have to see if there are objections to the proposal, and if those objections are justified - see the beginning of section 2 of RIPE-500: 'In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions for changes to the proposal and objections regarding the proposal must be justified with supporting arguments'. This is explicitly repeated in section 2.4.

In 2011-02, we have the case of "rough consensus with objections":

We have a number of people who spoke up in favour of the proposal, both during the discussion/review phases and during Last Call.  A few persons had serious doubts about routing table growth and about PI in general, but still spoke in favour of the proposal, or abstained.

One person opposes the proposal, based on worries about highly accelerated and thus unsustainable routing table growth as a consequence of the proposal.

Given that some of the other RIRs already have less restrictive IPv6 PI policies, the available numbers on their PI assignments and the routes seen in the global IPv6 BGP table do not back this assumption.  Neither does the data from the global IPv4 BGP table, where the RIPE region has always had a very relaxed PI policy.

So the AP WG chairs have decided (after long discussion) that we do have rough consensus on this policy proposal, and the remaining objections will be ignored.  Sander Steffann announced this at the APWG meeting - and one member of the WG spoke up at the microphone and disagreed with our conclusion.

So we spent some more weeks discussing and thinking about this, and this is what we do now:

 - the WG chairs declare consensus

 - but the *working group* has the last word on any policy decision,
   so we call for two weeks of "Last Call" on this decision


Procedure-wise, this is not about the *content* of the proposal now, and it's not useful to repeat the discussion about routing table growth etc.
now - we've heard all arguments.  What we need to decide now is whether the voices from the community so far form "rough consensus" on the proposal, or not.

If you, the WG, decides that we do not have consensus, the policy proposal goes back to "discussion phase", and the proposer will need to work with those people that spoke up against the proposal to integrate their ideas, and come up with a new version of the policy proposal that might then reach consensus.

sincerly yours,

        Gert Doering & Sander Steffann, APWG chairs

--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279