Wednesday, 2 August 2006
SSAC Lounge (Jim Galvin)
[17:46:20] galvinjamesm joins the room
[17:46:38] Jim Galvin joins the room
[17:47:23] Jim Galvin leaves the room
[17:47:42] <galvinjamesm> http://www.icann.org/policies/proposed-ipv6-policy-14jul06.htm
[18:01:20] Ram joins the room
[18:01:35] jaap joins the room
[18:01:56] SteveCrocker@jabber.org joins the room
[18:02:04] <jaap> Good evening
[18:02:21] Russ joins the room
[18:02:34] Rodney joins the room
[18:02:58] <Ram> hi jaap
[18:03:45] sob joins the room
[18:04:16] yodavehhi joins the room
[18:04:39] markk joins the room
[18:04:48] <yodavehhi> Heya, please keep notes so I can use your single source to write up whatever we agree to send to the board?
[18:05:09] gih900 joins the room
[18:05:22] <markk> Under 3.2, what is LENGTH OF PERIOD IN MONTHS - is it 9 months?
some body is typeing out loud.
[18:09:32] <markk> I'm good with the rest
[18:13:11] <galvinjamesm> is there a number for the basic unit from IR to service provider or is it just guidance to make it enough that requests for more are infrequent?
[18:14:23] <gih900> there is a minimum allocation unit of /32 - however the actualallocation size is based on the size of the anticipated deployment.
[18:14:32] Suzanne joins the room
[18:15:07] <Suzanne> hi guys....that was me joining the call
[18:15:11] <Suzanne> sorry I'm late
[18:15:14] <galvinjamesm> Thanks suzanne.
[18:15:22] <markk> the size wil change with experience
[18:15:25] <SteveCrocker@jabber.org> Welcome!
[18:15:31] <markk> gotta start somewhare
[18:16:45] <SteveCrocker@jabber.org> Motions from Ray:
[18:16:59] <markk> study on something that we don't have enough experience with yet?
[18:17:03] <SteveCrocker@jabber.org> 1. The ICANN SSAC recommends that the ICANN Board of Directors conduct a
study regarding the factors affecting the consumption of IPv6 address space
by the Internet community and publish a report of the results of this study.
[18:23:30] <sob> fwiw - using this request (size of IANA v6 allocation to RIRs) to pushback on the size of allocation from ISPs to their customers seems a bit over indirect
[18:24:12] <Rodney> I don't think routing table size is still an issue with IPv4.
[18:24:29] <Rodney> In fact we're now trying to do away with route dampening even.
[18:32:18] <markk> Yep. I agree leave it at a /12 and be done with it
[18:32:48] <markk> let the RIR's figure out the ISP/end site/whatever allocations
[18:33:05] <markk> but that can't really be done right without some more experience
[18:34:21] <Suzanne> the only question with /12 is whether it's short enough for the RIRs to really do their job or long enough that there's no way for IANA or anyone else to "close the loop" and monitor the results of that experience
[18:40:25] <markk> strictly my humble opinion, under v4, err on the side of smaller sizes to conserve space, on v6 err on the side of larger allocations to reduce fragmentation
[18:41:11] Rodney leaves the room
[18:41:56] Rodney joins the room
[18:50:17] <yodavehhi> i think geoff makes a compelling argument, i'd have to agree with Mark & Rodney that /12 in the context I *now* understand is appropriate.
[18:50:21] <jaap> (laughed about the car crash as well, but I'm on mute)
[18:51:44] <SteveCrocker@jabber.org> 2. The ICANN SSAC recommends that the ICANN Board of Directors adopt the
proposed global policy entitled " Allocation of IPv6 Address Space by the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to Regional Internet Registries"
as presented to the ICANN Board of Directors by the Address Council of the
Address Supporting Organization.
[18:52:00] <markk> I do have a question on the formula on 3.2
[18:52:24] <yodavehhi> Can you add the date of the proposal (14 July 2006) to the recommendation?
[18:54:14] <jaap> Me too wants to see rational with our recommendations
[18:56:05] <jaap> I actually was also wondering about th 18 months
[18:56:36] <Rodney> suz?
[18:56:50] <markk> she laughed too hard
[18:57:18] <gih900> V4 uses 18 months in this context. I am not aware of the V6 period, although I'd suggtest that 18 months should be a minimum period in order to avoid structural address fragmentation of allocation blocks
[18:58:11] <markk> Geoff - you are talking about isp/end sites?
[18:58:44] <gih900> I am talking about IANA to RIR allocation periods
[18:59:44] <yodavehhi> firstname.lastname@example.org
[19:00:01] <markk> I see 9 months plus a bit less than 50% of the current space - right?
[19:02:38] <yodavehhi> Frankly Geoff, I could be easily convinced to write "SSAC listened to Geoff and were overwhelmingly convinced by his arguments"
[19:02:58] <gih900> I see 18 months at the last statement in section 3 intro (immeidately prior to 3.1)
[19:03:52] <gih900> I;ll send a terse precis of the topic, as requested. in any case!
[19:05:03] <yodavehhi> thx
[19:05:04] <yodavehhi> bye
[19:05:08] yodavehhi leaves the room
[19:05:10] <Russ> bye all
[19:05:13] <SteveCrocker@jabber.org> Thanks everyone!
[19:05:13] Russ leaves the room
[19:05:13] sob leaves the room
[19:06:43] Ram leaves the room
[19:06:56] Jim Galvin joins the room
[19:07:30] Jim Galvin leaves the room
[19:07:37] galvinjamesm leaves the room
[19:08:44] gih900 leaves the room
[19:15:15] Suzanne leaves the room
[19:21:47] markk leaves the room
[20:19:33] jaap leaves the room
[20:54:43] Rodney leaves the room
[23:17:03] SteveCrocker@jabber.org leaves the room