Address Policy Working Group Minutes from RIPE 49
| RIPE Meeting: |
49 |
| Working Group: |
Address Policy |
| Status: |
Final |
| Revision Number: |
2 |
mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe-49/ap-1.wmv
mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe-49/ap-2.wmv
Address Policy Working Group Summary (RIPE 49)
Dates: 21-22 September 2004
Location: Renaissance Hotel Manchester
Agenda
A: Administrative matters
B: RIPE NCC update
C: Policy Discussion: IPv6 (changes to the initial allocation criteria)
D: Policy Development Process
E: ICANN ASO AC Update
F: Policy Discussion: Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from
IANA to RIRs
G: Policy Discussion: Whois registration (what should be in Whois and
why)
H: Policy Discussion: Paul Wilson's updated proposal: HD Ratio for IPv4
allocations
Y: Open Microphone
Z: AOB
-----------------------------------------------------------
A: Administrative matters
Chair: Hans Petter Holen
Co-Chair: Gert Doering, Andrea Borgato
Scribe: Scott Donald
Minutes from RIPE 48 approved:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r48-minutes.html
Update on open actions:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/action-list.html
Action 47.1 - the task force will form but there is not much activity
at the moment
Actions 47.2 and 47.4 have been completed
The other actions are ongoing
B: RIPE NCC (stats) update - Filiz Yilmaz (RIPE NCC)
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49-ap-stats.pdf
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49-ap-rs-update.pdf
There was a point made that the PI policy is quite discouraging, but
the amount of PI space assigned is increasing significantly. Filiz
Yilmaz pointed out that the RIPE NCC is following the policies and
assigns PI on that basis. Gert Doering said that the policy is to
blame, not the RIPE NCC, and he encourages people to join the mailing
list and change the policy if they are not happy with it.
Anne Lord (APNIC) said that their policy on IPv6 now allows LIRs who
already have an IPv6 allocation, to expand their IPv6 space to larger
amounts. This was in response to a new policy at APNIC which bases the
size of the first IPv6 allocation given to an LIR on their IPv4 usage,
which could have left LIRs who already had an IPv6 allocation at a
disadvantage.
C: IPv6 Address Policy- changes to the IPv6 initial allocation
criteria- Andy Furnell (LINX)
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49-ap-ipv6-criteria.pdf
Gert Doering says that discussions on the WG mailing list generally
support dropping the 200 users in 2 years prerequisite for LIRs to
receive an IPv6 allocation. ARIN and LACNIC has already dropped this
rule, so the RIRs are not in sync on this issue. He points out that not
everyone with an AS should be given an IPv6 allocation though. Kurtis
Lindqvist would like us to go ahead with this policy change and not
wait for the other RIRs to change first. He agrees that not every
organisation with an AS should get an IPv6 allocation, but every LIR
should be able to get one. Mike Hughes from LINX would like to get rid
of the 200 users rule as he thinks it is an arbitrary figure. Hans
Petter Holen says he can't get an IPv6 network because his LIR can't
make a plan for 200 users. There was a general feeling that routing
tables were not an issue with this proposed policy change. Iljitsch van
Beijnum recommended prohibiting IPv6 allocations to LIRs to keep the
numbers down.
Gert Doering said that already some organisations have been given IPv6
allocations without having 200 users for special reasons where they
clearly needed one.
ACTION POINT: Andy Furnell or Hans Petter Holen will draft a formal
proposal on removing the 200 customer requirement for IPv6 on the
mailing list.
D: Policy Development Process - Rob Blokzijl
It was stated that you can't change a policy by using the appeal
procedure of the policy arbitration committee. To change a policy, a
new proposal will need to be submitted.
All working groups will be affected by Rob Blokzijl's proposal. There
is a global mailing list for all working groups which is
ripe-list@ripe.net
ACTION POINT: Hans Petter Holen or Rob Blokzijl will publish a proposal
on the mailing list regarding the policy development process
E: ICANN ASO AC Update - Hans Petter Holen
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49-ap-aso.pdf
no comments
F: Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs - Axel
Pawlik (RIPE NCC)
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49-ap-ipv6-rir.pdf
Richard Jimmerson (ARIN) states that ARIN intends to make the ARIN
proposal the same as the APNIC proposal except that they will retain
the 18 month period instead of the 36 month period. He also stated that
there will be one global policy on this in the end.
Geoff Huston (APNIC) says the proposal is based on IPv4 usage over the
last 10 years. There are problems with /23 allocations for DNS. /12 is
the most conservative and is better that /16 allocations. There is no
tangible difference between allocating on an 18 month or 36 month
basis.
Gert Doering stated that the policy has widespread support on the
mailing list now that the /6 allocation issue and "allocation doubling"
issue have been removed from the proposal. There are over 2000 /12
allocations available so why make it smaller than /12.
Doug Barton (ICANN) says that ICANN is very pleased to see this
policy discussed. He would like to see the policy amended so that
IANA has a role in sending announcements that at allocation has been
made. He agrees with the concept of a reservation per region but is
not sure about the size that should be reserved. Also, he's not
sure about the assumption that a /48 of IPv6 is the equivalent of
/32 in IPv4. Finally, he thinks that a /12 is probably too large as
an initial allocation. However, if it is acceptyed he would like to
see a smaller subsequent allocation unit.
ACTION POINT: The community will continue this discussion regarding the
IANA-RIR IPv6 policy to the mailing list
G: Whois registration (what should be in Whois and why) - Eva Ericsson
Rabete (TeliaSonera)
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49-ap-whois-ipv6.pdf
Regarding the question about whether an organisation can have more than
one IPv6 /48 assignment, but with different LIRs, it was said by Gert
Doering and Kurtis Lindqvist that there is no requirement in the IPv6
policy for an LIR to check what IPv6 assignments an organisation has
with other providers before assigning a /48 to them.
Regarding which country code to use on the RIPE Database when a network
is spread over many countries, Leo Vegoda (RIPE NCC) says that multiple
country code fields can be entered. Others suggest just choosing the
country code the LIR feels is most appropriate.
There was a discussion about national privacy laws which prohibit the
details of private users being displayed on public databases. This
affects what can be shown to the RIPE NCC on databases used to display
IPv6 usage when additional IPv6 allocations are required. It was
suggested that the data could be displayed in such a way that the LIR
would be able to see the end user's details, but the RIPE NCC could
only see some basic information eg. a customer number.
Anne Lord (APNIC) says that the APNIC Whois will only show allocations
to LIRs, not end users information.
ACTION POINT: the community will take this discussion on the Whois to
the mailing list
H: Paul Wilson's updated proposal: HD Ratio for IPv4 allocations - Hans
Petter Holen
The proposal is available on the Address Policy working group mailing
list archive here:
http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2003/08/msg00000.html
There were no comments or objections to the proposal.
ACTION POINT: Alain will make a proposal on usage of the HD ratio for
IPv4.
Y: Open Microphone
no comments
Z: AOB
no other business so the meeting was closed.
|
you are here: RIPE -> RIPE Working Groups -> Address Policy
