From gert at space.net Tue Nov 4 10:04:24 2003 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:04:24 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Is the time for conservation over? In-Reply-To: References: <3FA07EBC.A09DB97E@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <20031104090424.GW30954@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:28:53AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Jeff Williams wrote: > > Stephane, > > Allow me to join you in the name calling. Count me in :-) > RIPE moderator, > > Jeff is a noted "net-kook" and should be filtered from all RIPE mailing > lists. I tend to disagree. Unless it gets excessive (as with Jim Fleming) we shouldn't block people from the RIPE lists. I think we can live with the occasional "IPv8 exists and is so much superiour" comments - always good for a laugh. Gert Doering, speaking only for myself here -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57386 (57785) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From gert at space.net Tue Nov 4 10:35:13 2003 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:35:13 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] re: Is the time for conservation over? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20031104093513.GB30954@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 02:18:32PM +0000, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote: > The key to avoiding the mistakes of history is to forget about > conserving address space. It is not a scarce resource; we have > lots of it. Strongly seconded. But I observe that this is very hard to get into people's minds ("640 kbyte are enough for everyone", "don't repeat mistakes from the past", "don't start wasting IPv6 address space before we know how much we'll need!"). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57386 (57785) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From gert at space.net Tue Nov 4 10:55:48 2003 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:55:48 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Is the time for conservation over? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20031104095547.GE30954@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:54:45PM +0000, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote: > In addition, I don't see any good reason to wait until LIRs come and ask > for IPv6 space. It's not scarce and the vast majority of IPv4 LIRs will > be deploying IPv6 sometime. So why don't we just give every single > one of them an IPv6 /32 today. Instead of creating barriers to the > adoption I have proposed that myself in the past. People don't like it. In retrospect, it's not such a good idea anyway. I strongly hope that a few of the big DSL ISPs will start deploying IPv6 "soon", and they might need much more space than a /32, eventually even more than a /29. So the scheme "give everyone a /32, and reserve a /29" isn't going to work for all of the networks, and I hope it's going to be changed "soon" anyway (allocation of much bigger blocks ICANN -> RIRs, and then use something similar to the "binary chop" proposed in RIPE-261 for the distribution RIR->LIRs [or maybe do by-country]). Because of this, I'd rather not take this approach. (Of course it's highly important that *if* a LIR comes asking, the /32 will be granted quickly and without annoying buerocracy :) - and if a LIR has a good deployment plan for something bigger than a /32, it will also work out without major pains. I've seen a /31 allocated, so it *can* be done!) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57386 (57785) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From gert at space.net Tue Nov 4 10:57:55 2003 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:57:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Is the time for conservation over? In-Reply-To: <3FA07EBC.A09DB97E@ix.netcom.com> References: <20031027141558.GB27711@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <3F9ED682.C58BEE5A@ix.netcom.com> <20031029090654.GA18093@nic.fr> <3FA07EBC.A09DB97E@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <20031104095755.GF30954@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 07:00:13PM -0800, Jeff Williams wrote: > Stephane and all, > > See: http://www.ipv8.info/ > > I am sorry to see that the moderator allowed this retort of dubious > quality to be allowed to post to this forum. I hope that such name > calling antics would of course be below the standard of the > participants of this forum and such perpetrators be requested > to discontinue such unproductive discourse... Just to clarify something. The RIPE apwg mailing list is *not* moderated, so there are no "moderators" that can stop people from "name calling". On the other hand, you and Jim Fleming are provoking harsh responses by entering productive discussions and trolling around with "IPv8" - so don't claim surprise. Gert Doering -- APWG co-chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57386 (57785) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From debecker at etno.be Mon Nov 10 17:46:49 2003 From: debecker at etno.be (Debecker Leo) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:46:49 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] ETNO Common Position on IANA policies for allocation of IPV4 blocks Message-ID: <002801c3a7aa$3c5de050$0301a8c0@etno.be> RIPE Address Policy WG Concerns: Your document describing the policies governing the allocation of IPv4 address space from IANA to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) (call for comments, deadline 16 November 2003). Dear colleagues, Please find below the ETNO Common Position on the aforementioned consultation document. This ETNO Common Positions has been approved by all the members of the ETNO Naming, Addressing and Numbering Working Group and then received a unanimous positive vote from all 39 member companies in ETNO. The paper will equally be published, as of tomorrow, on our web site at: www.etno.be Best regards, Leo Debecker Executive Manager, Operations ETNO Brussels. November 2003 ETNO Common Position on "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policies for Allocation of IPV4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries" Executive Summary ETNO supports the proposed global policy and finds it is much more precise than the existing one. In particular, the concept will allow Regional Internet Registries more flexibility in the management of their allocated space. The European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association (1) (ETNO) has carefully reviewed the proposed global policy defining the address allocation of IPV4 Blocks from IANA to the Regional Internet Registries (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/iana-rir-allocation-policies.h tml). This policy has the merit of being much more precise, documented and detailed than the existing one. Clear definitions of available space and necessary space are provided. The proposal will allow more flexibility for the Regional Registries in the management of their allocated address space, based on the: . allocation of a sufficient address space to cover the needs for an 18 month period . possibility to take into account documented special needs to calculate the necessary space. ETNO supports this proposal and is convinced that Local Internet Registries and their customers will benefit from this flexibility. (1) The European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association is representing 39 major companies from 34 European countries, providing electronic communications networks over fixed, mobile or personal communications systems. ETNO's primary purpose is to establish a constructive dialogue between its member companies and actors involved in the development of the European Information Society to the benefit of users. More information on ETNO can be found at: www.etno.be -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chr at jay.net Mon Nov 17 13:35:37 2003 From: chr at jay.net (Christian Rasmussen) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:35:37 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA allocation size In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, I very much agree that the requirement for receiving an allocation should be lowered. This was discussed last month, but has something happened? According to the newly published document ripe-288, 5.1 an ISP setting up as LIR still must demonstrate "efficient utilisation of at least a /22 of address space". An ISP able/willing to pay for setting up a LIR should simply be granted an allocation. Of course the allocation size should be determined on the basis of the LIR's future needs, and /21 would probably be more appropriate for several small LIRs. I understand that the current policy makes it possible for an enduser/ISP to not get an allocation when setting up a LIR (if a /22 is not immediately needed), but will be able to receive a /22 PA assignment from an upstream and THEN using the /22 assignment as documentation be granted an allocation... Not to mention all the time wasted on getting an assigment, renumbering and so on, this does not make sense at all! Hopefully this can be changed on the next meeting. Med venlig hilsen/Best regards Christian Rasmussen Hosting manager, jay.net a/s Smedeland 32, 2600 Glostrup, Denmark Email: noc at jay.net Personal email: chr at corp.jay.net Tlf./Phone: +45 3336 6300, Fax: +45 3336 6301 Produkter / Products: http://hosting.jay.net > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of Titley, Nigel > Sent: 24. oktober 2003 15:20 > To: Gert Doering; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA > allocation size > > > Gert Doering wrote: > > Hi, > > > > this was discussed on the list before the last RIPE meeting, and we > > had it on the address policy working group meeting (presented by me). > > > > I think we mostly have consensus on this issue, but I want to present > > it as a formal proposal, before it's incorporated into the policy. > > I am strongly in favour of this, it helps to solve the > bootstrapping problem > that many small LIRs suffer from, and which many have to lie about to get > around. > > > > > PROPOSAL: > > > > * the minimum initial allocation size (for new LIRs) is reduced from > > a /20, as of today, to a /21. > > (If a new LIR can demonstrate need for a bigger initial > > allocation, they can get a larger address block. This will not > > be changed). > > > > * the requirement to show an immediate need for 25% of the allocated > > address space is removed for the "minimum initial allocation" > > > > > > The motivation for that is that under the current policy, startup LIRs > > that do not already hold address space cannot get an initial > > PA allocation > > (which would be a /20 as of today, or bigger), because in > > many cases, they > > cannot demonstrate immediate need, or prior utilization of sufficient > > address space. > > > > To work around this, many startup LIRs use PI address space > > as a start, > > and when they have filled enough of this, apply for their own > > PA again. > > The problem with this is that in the end, it's very likely that more > > than one route will end up in the global BGP table (where one PA route > > would be sufficient), and also it encourages lying to the > > RIRs (PI space > > must not be distributed to third parties, i.e., LIR customers). > > > > > > The drawback of the changes are that it's potentially wasting address > > space for "very small LIRs" (that would be happy with a /23 PI space > > and will now get a "huge" /21). The wastage would only happen for > > very small LIRs that will never grow to fill the initial /21. > > A rough calculation shows that "1000 new LIR /21 allocations" would > > need a /11, which is not an unbearable strain on the conservation > > side, judging from the total number of LIRs in RIPE land today. > > > > A second drawback of this is that people may need to adapt their BGP > > filters to permit /21s from the network block(s) where these > > allocations are made from. So the RIPE NCC needs to document this > > accordingly, and ideally, well in advance. > > > > Gert Doering > > -- NetMaster > > > > ********************************************************************** > This e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the > use of the > individual or entity named above and contains information which > is or may be > confidential, non-public or legally privileged. Any dissemination or > distribution of this message other than to its intended recipient is > strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please > notify us by email to postmaster at flagtelecom.com immediately and > delete the > original message and all copies from all locations in your > computer systems. > > > This e-mail has been swept by Mailsweeper TM for viruses. However, FLAG > Telecom cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a > result of software viruses. > ********************************************************************** > > > > From leo at ripe.net Tue Nov 18 13:49:14 2003 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:49:14 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New IPv4 blocks allocated to RIPE NCC Message-ID: <20031118124914.GA12224@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address ranges 83.0.0.0/8 and 84.0.0.0/8 from the IANA in November 2003. We will begin allocating from these ranges in the near future. On 24 October 2003 there was a formal proposal to the RIPE Address Policy Working Group to lower the minimum allocation size from /20 to /21. For the text of this proposal please see: It is likely that there will be formal consensus on this proposal in the near future. Consequently, the minimum allocation size for these blocks has been set at /21. Nonetheless, the RIPE NCC will not make /21 allocations from these blocks until after there is formal consensus to do so. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our web site at: Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager From contact at ripe.net Mon Nov 24 16:46:54 2003 From: contact at ripe.net (Membership Liason Officer) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:46:54 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Final Reminder - RIPE NCC Dubai Meeting, Dec. 2003 Message-ID: <20031124164654.10405d0d.contact@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Middle East, will be held 7 - 9 December 2003 at the Taj Palace Hotel, Dubai, U.A.E. The meeting will focus on Internet resource management issues. Attendance to the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting is free of charge. However, attendees are responsible for covering their own travel and accommodation costs. AGENDA The agenda has been recently updated with more information about speakers and presentations. For the full agenda, please see: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/regional-meetings/dubai-2003/plan.html REGISTRATION To register for the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Middle East, please see: http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/dubai-reg HOTEL RESERVATIONS: The RIPE NCC has arranged for a block of rooms to be held for meeting attendees at the Metropolitan Palace Hotel and the Metropolitan Hotel Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai. There are a limited number of rooms available. Please note that rooms will be held only until 25 November 2003. After this date we cannot guarantee room availability. To reserve a room directly with the hotel, please use the reservation forms at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/regional-meetings/dubai-2003/hotel-information.html Any further questions about the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Middle East, can be sent directly to: . Regards, Sabrina Wilmot Membership Liaison Officer RIPE NCC