From chapuis at ip-plus.net Mon Apr 5 11:05:38 2004 From: chapuis at ip-plus.net (Andre Chapuis) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 11:05:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: New IPv4 Allocations to the RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040401135850.02b4c8d8@127.0.0.1> References: <6.0.0.22.2.20040401135850.02b4c8d8@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <1561632522.20040405110538@ip-plus.net> Hi Leo, Can you please update RIPE-296 ? What will the min-alloc be ? I guess /21, but just to be sure ! Thanks, Andr? This is a forwarded message From: Steve Conte To: nanog at merit.edu Date: Thursday, April 1, 2004, 11:59:33 PM Subject: New IPv4 Allocations to the RIPE NCC ===8<==============Original message text=============== Greetings, This is to inform you that the IANA has allocated the following four (4) IPv4 /8 blocks to the RIPE NCC: 85/8 86/8 87/8 88/8 For a full list of IANA IPv4 allocations please see: . Thanks, Steve --------------- Steve Conte - IANA conte at iana.org PGP KeyID: 0x0972C473 ===8<===========End of original message text=========== -- Best regards, -------------------------------- Andr? Chapuis IP+ Backbone engineering, AS3303 Swisscom Enterprise Solutions AG Genfergasse 14, CH-3050 Bern +41 31 893 89 61 chapuis at ip-plus.net CCIE #6023 -------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Steve Conte Subject: New IPv4 Allocations to the RIPE NCC Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 13:59:33 -0800 Size: 3032 URL: From ncc at ripe.net Mon Apr 5 13:31:38 2004 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Announcement) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:31:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New IPv4 blocks allocated to RIPE NCC Message-ID: <200404051131.i35BVcc4018724@birch.ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address ranges 85.0.0.0/8, 86.0.0.0/8, 87.0.0.0/8 and 88.0.0.0/8 from the IANA in April 2004. We will begin allocating from these ranges in the near future. The minimum allocation size for these four /8s has been set at /21. 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: Additionally, please note that two "pilot" prefixes are being announced from each /8. The prefixes are: 85.192.0.0/16 & 85.255.248.0/21 86.192.0.0/16 & 86.255.248.0/21 87.192.0.0/16 & 87.255.248.0/21 88.192.0.0/16 & 88.255.248.0/21 They all originate in AS12654. More information on this "pilot" activity is available in the draft document "De-Bogonising New Address Blocks" which can be found at: Best regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC From adiel at akplogan.com Tue Apr 13 11:54:19 2004 From: adiel at akplogan.com (Adiel A. AKPLOGAN) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:54:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AfriNIC Transition: IPv4 allocation Policy change for African LIR Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20040413115410.0542b830@pop.mail.yahoo.fr> Dear WG, I would like to make a last call for consensus on the proposal to modify the IPv4 allocation policy in the African portion of the RIPE NCC service region. The detailed proposal was posted to this list on 18 January and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2004/msg00123.html It was also discussed at RIPE 47 later in January. A copy of the presentation made to the Address Policy WG can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-47/presentations/ripe47-ap-afrinic-policy.pdf and minutes of the discussion that took place can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r47-minutes.html (See section E). If there are no major objections to the policy proposal We would like to see the policy implemented as soon as possible. _______________________________________________________________________ Adiel A. AKPLOGAN Tel. +27 (0)12 841 2894 AfriNIC - Project Manager Fax: +27 (0)12 841 4720 2nd Floor, Les Jamalacs Building adiel at afrinic.org Vieux Conseil Street - Port-Louis MU www.afrinic.net From andrea at inet.it Wed Apr 14 12:53:51 2004 From: andrea at inet.it (Andrea Borgato) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:53:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Address Policy WG Action List Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040414125038.02331c10@pop.inet.it> Dears, Here in the following you can find Update Address Policy WG Action List, pubblic available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/action-list.html 46.1 Chairs-WG Revise RIPE 152 (not allowed to charge for Done domain names) 46.4 Chairs Summarize and propose updated description of Completed the policy process 47.1 Chair Policy Development Process Ongoing Form a task force to write a policy development process propposal 47.2 NCC RIPE 152 to Historical and recomed to the RIPE NCC to make a clear statement that they do not charge for IP addresses 47.3 Andreas B?? Anycast for CCTLD ? complete discussion on Ongoing mailinglist to form formal proposal 47.4 Chair Afrinic proposal for /22 mimimum allocation size. Seek final consensus on the list 47.5 Chair Changing the 80% rule for IPv4 allocations: start discussion on the mailing list Any comments will be apreciated. Regards, Andrea Borgato RIPE AP-WG co-chair From contact at ripe.net Mon Apr 19 12:40:46 2004 From: contact at ripe.net (Membership Liaison Officer) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:40:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Moscow, 16-18 June 2004 Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20040419123859.051d2e68@mailhost.ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Moscow, to be held 16 - 18 June 2004 at the Hotel Metropol, Moscow, Russia. Registration for the Regional Meeting opens 19 April 2004. Attendance to the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting is open and free of charge. However, attendees are responsible to cover their own travel and accommodation costs. To register, please see: http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/moscow-reg The RIPE NCC Regional Meeting will focus on Internet resource allocation and Internet management issues including: - How to participate in and influence IP address management policy-making; - The industry self-regulatory open structures and processes used by the RIPE NCC and the global Internet community; - Are we running out of IPv4 address space?; - An update on IPv6; - Local, Regional and Global Internet Working and Routing; - Domain Name management on the Internet; - Root Server Operations The Regional Meeting draft agenda can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/regional-meetings/moscow-2004/agenda.html RIPE and the RIPE NCC will explain their roles in the administration of the Internet infrastructure as well as specific aspects in managing and operating the Internet infrastructure. The discussions will be directly related to the particular needs and concerns surrounding these issues in the region. The current draft meeting agenda reflects our intentions. However, it requires active participation from the local community to discuss specific issues of the region. The RIPE NCC has reserved several presentation opportunities for those with local knowledge of Internet management and operational issues affecting the region. If your organisation wishes to provide a presentation or suggest a relevant topic, please send your proposal by e-mail to: The RIPE NCC is one of four Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) that provide Internet resource allocation, registration services and co-ordination activities that support the operation of the Internet globally. The RIPE NCC is an independent, not-for-profit membership organisation that provides services to members in its service region currently covering Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and African countries located north of the equator. Further information about the RIPE NCC and RIPE can be found at: http://www.ripe.net More information about the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Moscow is available from: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/regional-meetings/moscow-2004/ Any further questions can be sent directly to: . Regards, Nathalie Dougall Membership Liaison Officer RIPE NCC From joao at psg.com Fri Apr 23 10:45:46 2004 From: joao at psg.com (Joao Damas) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:45:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt Message-ID: <9CE1DD72-9502-11D8-82A3-000A959B2120@psg.com> A new draft requesting expansion of RFC 1918 space by adding 3 /8s to space reserved for private use. Given the presented justification (see introduction): "Given the policies for acquiring additional public space it is not reasonable for them to acquire such space for use in their private networks. " I am left a bit confused about the statement and would like to have the wg request the RIPE NCC to ask the author for further clarification Regards, Joao Damas From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Fri Apr 23 11:16:38 2004 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:16:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt Message-ID: <00A30CAC.E8D8413C.37@cc.univie.ac.at> Hi Joao, >A new draft requesting expansion of RFC 1918 space by adding 3 /8s to >space reserved for private use. > >Given the presented justification (see introduction): > >"Given the policies for acquiring additional public > space it is not reasonable for them to acquire such space for use in > their private networks. " what is the word "them" referring to? Or should I just read this draft (on top of some other MByte of stuff that should be read ;-) >I am left a bit confused about the statement and would like to have the >wg request the RIPE NCC to ask the author for further clarification > >Regards, >Joao Damas Thanks, Wilfried ( https://cert.aco.net/ ) _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...there's no place like 127.0.0.1 (or ::1 ?) From James_R-ripelist at jump.org.uk Fri Apr 23 14:29:00 2004 From: James_R-ripelist at jump.org.uk (James A. T. Rice) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:29:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt In-Reply-To: <00A30CAC.E8D8413C.37@cc.univie.ac.at> References: <00A30CAC.E8D8413C.37@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Or should I just read this draft (on top of some other MByte of stuff > that should be read ;-) Its only a short draft, but I'm in disbelief that "A number of organizations have expanded their autonomous private networks to the point of exhausting the address space identified in RFC 1918" Sounds more like poor / lazy / classful subnetting to me, of which the cure is is not allocating another 3 /8's of otherwise usuable globally unique IP space. We already have 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 169.254/16, 192.0.2/24. If these 18 million IPs aren't enough for an enterprises internal usage, I'm amazed. Regards James From gert at space.net Fri Apr 23 14:57:51 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:57:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt In-Reply-To: References: <00A30CAC.E8D8413C.37@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20040423125751.GL13090@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:29:00PM +0100, James A. T. Rice wrote: > We already have 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 169.254/16, 192.0.2/24. If > these 18 million IPs aren't enough for an enterprises internal usage, I'm > amazed. Full ACK. Speaking as networking person, not as co-chair. The approach is interesting. "Since getting public address space means 'lots of work in making a proper address plan', we just grab 3 full /8s". So how to proceed? Is this an IETF working group (-backed) thing, or just a private draft? Should there be a formal RIR response? Is this RIR business, or ICANN/AC/ASO business? I'm a bit confused about the politics here. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From randy at psg.com Fri Apr 23 15:06:09 2004 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 06:06:09 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt References: <00A30CAC.E8D8413C.37@cc.univie.ac.at> <20040423125751.GL13090@Space.Net> Message-ID: <16521.5313.515315.137249@ran.psg.com> > The approach is interesting. "Since getting public address space > means 'lots of work in making a proper address plan', we just > grab 3 full /8s". > > So how to proceed? spend time from now to meeting doing productive (i.e. other) things. at meeting, give it five minutes on the agenda, just in case there is something not obvious and useful hidden in this. after meeting, get back to productive work. > Is this an IETF working group (-backed) thing, or just a private > draft? Should there be a formal RIR response? Is this RIR > business, or ICANN/AC/ASO business? I'm a bit confused about the > politics here. who cares? why care? any idiot can publish an internet-daft; i myself demonstrated this many times until harold fired me and i got a life. judge it on its merits, or lack thereof. imiho, it has no merit. randy From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Fri Apr 23 15:16:26 2004 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:16:26 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt Message-ID: <00A30CCE.68E16D74.35@cc.univie.ac.at> >> ... I'm a bit confused about the politics here. > >who cares? why care? any idiot can publish an internet-daft; Hm, the author is Tony Hein, cisco (but the date is April 2004 ;-) >judge it on its merits, or lack thereof. imiho, it has no merit. After a quick read - it smells like there's a hidden agenda somewhere, at least for 1.0.0.0/8 >randy Wilfried. From chbm at cprm.net Fri Apr 23 15:32:58 2004 From: chbm at cprm.net (Carlos Morgado) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:32:58 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt In-Reply-To: <9CE1DD72-9502-11D8-82A3-000A959B2120@psg.com> References: <9CE1DD72-9502-11D8-82A3-000A959B2120@psg.com> Message-ID: <20040423133258.GA25492@cprm.net> On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 10:45:46AM +0200, Joao Damas wrote: > A new draft requesting expansion of RFC 1918 space by adding 3 /8s to > space reserved for private use. > > Given the presented justification (see introduction): > > "Given the policies for acquiring additional public > space it is not reasonable for them to acquire such space for use in > their private networks. " > Hi Jo?o, my reading is "acording to policy, the request would fail the 'can private space be used' check". However, I also read a "making request for private networks is such an hassle" subtext which might be due to my lack of English skills, the author's lack of English skills, or both :) Either way, it seems like a rather poor draft on the whole and doesn't seem to have been particularly though through. Regards -- Carlos Morgado - Internet Engineering - Phone +351 214146594 GPG key: 0x75E451E2 FP: B98B 222B F276 18C0 266B 599D 93A1 A3FB 75E4 51E2 The views expressed above do not bind my employer. From Joao_Damas at isc.org Fri Apr 23 15:34:46 2004 From: Joao_Damas at isc.org (Joao Damas) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:34:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt In-Reply-To: <20040423125751.GL13090@Space.Net> References: <00A30CAC.E8D8413C.37@cc.univie.ac.at> <20040423125751.GL13090@Space.Net> Message-ID: Well, my request was for the NCC, which has the time and the mission to follow this stuff closely, to ask the author for clarification (rather than make any assumptions) and then let us know Joao On 23 Apr, 2004, at 14:57, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:29:00PM +0100, James A. T. Rice wrote: >> We already have 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 169.254/16, 192.0.2/24. >> If >> these 18 million IPs aren't enough for an enterprises internal usage, >> I'm >> amazed. > > Full ACK. Speaking as networking person, not as co-chair. > > The approach is interesting. "Since getting public address space means > 'lots of work in making a proper address plan', we just grab 3 full > /8s". > > So how to proceed? Is this an IETF working group (-backed) thing, or > just a private draft? Should there be a formal RIR response? Is this > RIR business, or ICANN/AC/ASO business? I'm a bit confused about the > politics here. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 > (58081) > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > From hank at att.net.il Fri Apr 23 16:07:10 2004 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:07:10 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, James A. T. Rice wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > > > Or should I just read this draft (on top of some other MByte of stuff > > that should be read ;-) > > Its only a short draft, but I'm in disbelief that "A number of > organizations have expanded their autonomous private networks to the point > of exhausting the address space identified in RFC 1918" > > Sounds more like poor / lazy / classful subnetting to me, of which the > cure is is not allocating another 3 /8's of otherwise usuable globally > unique IP space. > > We already have 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 169.254/16, 192.0.2/24. If > these 18 million IPs aren't enough for an enterprises internal usage, I'm > amazed. Ditto. But there might be cellphone providers with large coverage areas that might need that many. -Hank > > Regards > James > Hank Nussbacher From pim at bit.nl Fri Apr 23 19:38:27 2004 From: pim at bit.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:38:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20040423173827.GB82410@hog.ipng.nl> | > We already have 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 169.254/16, 192.0.2/24. If | > these 18 million IPs aren't enough for an enterprises internal usage, I'm | > amazed. | | Ditto. But there might be cellphone providers with large coverage areas | that might need that many. IPv6. I do not see any good in allocating even one /8 in additional private address space. -- Met vriendelijke groet, BIT BV / Ing P.B. van Pelt PBVP1-RIPE (PGPKEY-4DCA7E5E) From fw at deneb.enyo.de Fri Apr 23 23:26:28 2004 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:26:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt In-Reply-To: (Hank Nussbacher's message of "Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:07:10 +0300 (IDT)") References: Message-ID: <8765bqo06z.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> Hank Nussbacher writes: >> We already have 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 169.254/16, 192.0.2/24. If >> these 18 million IPs aren't enough for an enterprises internal usage, I'm >> amazed. > > Ditto. But there might be cellphone providers with large coverage areas > that might need that many. Well, such providers have to prepare for mergers anyway. They have to plan for NAT between private addrss space, no matter how much such space there is. I think address space can be put to better use than burning it that way. -- Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the following domains: atlas.cz, bigpond.com, postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr. From mansaxel at sunet.se Sat Apr 24 20:07:14 2004 From: mansaxel at sunet.se (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Nilsson_KTHNOC?=) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:07:14 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt In-Reply-To: <16521.5313.515315.137249@ran.psg.com> References: <00A30CAC.E8D8413C.37@cc.univie.ac.at> <20040423125751.GL13090@Space.Net> <16521.5313.515315.137249@ran.psg.com> Message-ID: <591370000.1082830034@slimsixten.pilsnet.sunet.se> --On Friday, April 23, 2004 06:06:09 -0700 Randy Bush wrote: > spend time from now to meeting doing productive (i.e. other) > things. at meeting, give it five minutes on the agenda, just in > case there is something not obvious and useful hidden in this. > after meeting, get back to productive work. > judge it on its merits, or lack thereof. imiho, it has no merit. -- M?ns Nilsson Systems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: not available URL: