Re: [hostmaster-staff] Re: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6numobjects

  • To: Robert Kiessling <Robert.Kiessling at de dot easynet dot net>
  • Subject: Re: [hostmaster-staff] Re: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6numobjects
  • From: Anne Lord <anne at apnic dot net>
  • Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:21:27 +1000 (EST)
  • Cc: Joao Luis Silva Damas <joao at ripe dot net>, ipv6-wg at ripe dot net, lir-wg at ripe dot net, db-wg at ripe dot net, sig-db at lists dot apnic dot net, sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net, apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <m3y9dkwsn8.fsf at joseba dot easynet dot de>
  • Sender:
      > > What is an IPv6 IX assignment?
      > An assignment done by directly RIR from a non-routed block. Nothing
      The policy language (as far as i could tell) does not state 
      non-routability as an explicit condition of these assignments - it is 
      up to individual ISPs to determine routablility. (But ok it is likely 
      they wont be routed).
      > very special or warranting a special attribute value for it, IMHO.
      APNIC has not yet implemented values for the status attribute for IPv4,
      but whatever values we do implement, we would like to have some 
      consistency in the terminology between IPv4 and IPv6 - that doesnt mean
      we have to use all the values from the set of potential values for
      both IPv4 and IPv6, but from a user perspective it does seem to make
      sense to have the same wording especially as we are *about* to 
      introduce this attribute.  For RIPE it might be different - you guys
      have been using the 'status' attribute for a while.  We do therefore 
      have some flexibility in the terminology we choose for IPv4 and IPv6 
      therefore and can hopefully arrive at terminology that suits everyones needs.
      The end goal for us is to be able to identify portable and non-portable 
      address space. This might have more emphasis in v4 and i would argue,
      is not redundant in IPv6. My question is, does indicating the assigning/ 
      allocating body, convey enough information ie. RIR-assigned, LIR assigned.
      Does that tell you that the former is portable, and the latter non-portable? 
      Likewise for allocated, where the RIR-Allocated is a portable block, and
      the LIR-allocated is non-portable?  
      'Delegated' has been suggested here as a replacement for 'Allocated' and
      seems to have some favour. I had previously thought that the term
      'delegated' could mean 'allocated' *or* 'assigned'???   But maybe this
      isnt the case...? for those in favour of using Delegated instead of allocated,
      are you talking just w.r.t the database or in wider usage throughout
      our documentation. If you use it just in the database, then it could be
      confusing - and if we change the documentation, then this is a much
      bigger issue of course.
      Allocation and assign do have definitions - could these be improved
      to clarify the meaning? Or does 'delegate' simply convey a much 
      clearer intention with the address space?
      allocate - Allocated address space is address space that is 
      distributed to IRs for the purpose of subsequent distribution by them
      assign - Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to 
      an ISP or end-user, for specific use within the Internet infrastructure 
      they operate. Assignments must only be made for specific, documented 
      purposes and may not be sub-assigned.
      > > I think the distinction is important - it is very useful to be able to 
      > > label address space as portable or non portable (or PI PA for RIPE) especially
      > > as we still encounter many that think that all address space is portable.
      > Which are portable assignments? I can only possibly see IX assignments
      > and the root server block.
      In IPv4 portable assignments are being made by the RIRs. In the ARIN
      region they have a policy for 'critical infrastructure' that applies
      to IPv4 that may well apply to IPv6 which encompasses a bigger set
      that the above mentioned (ccTLD's, Root name servers etc). The AP 
      region is yet to discuss this further.
      > > > > To clarify, the values that APNIC would prefer to use are:
      > > > > 
      > > > > ASSIGNED PORTABLE 
      > > > 
      > > > This does not take into account that there are no portable addresses,
      > > 
      > > what is an allocation from an RIR to you as an LIR? 
      > A block from which non-portable addresses are assigned or allocated by
      > the LIR, thus "ALLOCATED NON-PORTABLE".
      But what is the block itself? 
      > Which "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" blocks do you see?
      > How would you distinguish an allocation from RIR to LIR from that of a
      > LIR to some provider ("NLA")?
      The former is a portable block. the latter is a non-portable block. 
      Allocated portable, and allocated non-portable.  the assignments made from 
      each are non-portable. 
      *              APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List             *
      * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net *