From filiz at ripe.net Thu Jul 6 13:20:01 2006 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:20:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 & 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 17 August 2006 Message-ID: <20060706112001.6AB052F592@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2006-01 Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations and PDP Number: 2006-02 IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy Dear Colleagues The Discussion Period for proposals 2006-01 and 2006-02 has been extended until 17 August 2006. 2006-01 is intended to provide a solution for organisations that need IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) assignments and 2006-02 is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria, the End Site definition and assignment of multiple /48s to a single End Site as outlined in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy". You can find the full proposals at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html and http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html We encourage you to review these policy proposals and send your comments to . Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From leo at ripe.net Mon Jul 10 13:50:48 2006 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:50:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 91.192/10 to be used for PI assignments to End Users Message-ID: <44B23F18.9060305@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, At recent RIPE Meetings, we have reported a steady rise in requests from our members for Provider Independent (PI) address space for End User networks. We have reclaimed and recycled space from closed Local Internet Registries to meet this demand, but we are nearing the point where the available PI space will run out. In the past, we made PI assignments from former Class C space (193/8 and 194/7). Because of the increasing demand for PI space, we made sure that we would be able to use some of our most recent allocation of address space to meet future requests. We have designated 91.192/10 for PI assignments to End User networks. When the former Class C space is exhausted, we will start to make PI assignments from 91.192/10. We will let you know when this happens. We are announcing a pilot prefix using the RIS beacons, you may want to update any filters that you have in place. The RIS beacons are announcing the following networks: 91.192.0.0/24 91.192.0.0/16 You can ping 91.192.0.1. Full details of reachable IP addresses and tools are available on our web site at: http://www.ris.ripe.net/debogon/debogon.html Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC From jeroen at unfix.org Mon Jul 10 14:23:26 2006 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:23:26 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 91.192/10 to be used for PI assignments to End Users In-Reply-To: <44B23F18.9060305@ripe.net> References: <44B23F18.9060305@ripe.net> Message-ID: <1152534206.6077.23.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 13:50 +0200, leo vegoda wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > At recent RIPE Meetings, we have reported a steady rise in requests from > our members for Provider Independent (PI) address space for End User > networks. Any link to the slides which might contain the expected increase for the coming years? Especially the estimated number of routes that will newly be announced using BGP because of this would be something nice to see. Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From leo at ripe.net Mon Jul 10 14:33:15 2006 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:33:15 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 91.192/10 to be used for PI assignments to End Users In-Reply-To: <1152534206.6077.23.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> References: <44B23F18.9060305@ripe.net> <1152534206.6077.23.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: <44B2490B.2080507@ripe.net> Hi Jeroen, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 13:50 +0200, leo vegoda wrote: >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> At recent RIPE Meetings, we have reported a steady rise in requests from >> our members for Provider Independent (PI) address space for End User >> networks. > > Any link to the slides which might contain the expected increase for the > coming years? Especially the estimated number of routes that will newly > be announced using BGP because of this would be something nice to see. Slides from RIPE 52 are available here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-plenary-ripe_ncc_numbers_update.pdf We have not made a growth projection in these slides because we concentrate on reporting what has happened. Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC From contact at ripe.net Tue Jul 25 17:21:59 2006 From: contact at ripe.net (Paul Rendek) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:21:59 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Call For Nominations for NRO Number Council Seat 2006 Message-ID: <44C63717.1020300@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, This is a call for nominations from the RIPE NCC service region to fill one vacant seat on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council (NC). The term of Sabine Jaume, who was elected in January 2004, expires in December 2006. Due to an administrative error, this call for nominations is issued after the prescribed 90-day pre-election period as suggested in the NRO NC election process. We are confident that we will secure qualified candidates within the remaining time. The representative appointed by the Internet community for the NRO NC seat will serve a three-year term, beginning 1 January 2007. ========================================================================== Deadline for nominations: 4 September, 2006 Elections: 4 October, 2006, at the RIPE 53 Meeting, Amsterdam, the Netherlands =========================================================================== For more information about the NRO NC, nominations and the election process, see: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2006/ Regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services & Communications RIPE NCC From filiz at ripe.net Thu Jul 27 13:42:08 2006 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:42:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy) Message-ID: <20060727114208.D5BD92F592@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2005-08 Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy Dear Colleagues As you might remember, it was decided during RIPE 51 that the proposal described in 2005-08, "Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy" should be split into two parts. Accordingly, we have published two draft documents. You can find the draft documents at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-08-56s.html defining allocation efficiency measurement unit as /56 and http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-08-hd-ratio.html changing the HD ratio value to 0.94 You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 24 August 2006. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk Fri Jul 28 10:21:19 2006 From: Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk (Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:21:19 +0100 Subject: Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy) Message-ID: Hi, Both of these proposals change the onus on an LIR from having "... a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two years." to having "... a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other organisations within two years." While this increases flexibility it still has an arbritrary feel to it. Why 200 assignments? I can see that this is meant to prevent the numberspace becoming too fractured, so reducing the size of the routing table. However, I worry that it may have the side effect of imposing a hierarchy of ISPs within IPv6 that does not meet the requirements of smaller organisations. It seems there is little interest at present within the larger UK-based ISPs in providing IPv6, (with the exception of NTT-Verio), and this change won't affect that. Is there a better way to encourage the uptake of IPv6 without preventing exponential routing table growth? Ian ----- Forwarded by Ian Meikle/Nominet on 27/07/06 15:53 ----- Filiz Yilmaz Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net 27/07/06 12:42 Please respond to filiz at ripe.net To policy-announce at ripe.net cc Hans Petter Holen , Kurtis Lindqvist , Geoff Huston , address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy) PDP Number: 2005-08 Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy Dear Colleagues As you might remember, it was decided during RIPE 51 that the proposal described in 2005-08, "Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy" should be split into two parts. Accordingly, we have published two draft documents. You can find the draft documents at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-08-56s.html defining allocation efficiency measurement unit as /56 and http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-08-hd-ratio.html changing the HD ratio value to 0.94 You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 24 August 2006. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From nick at inex.ie Sat Jul 29 10:43:17 2006 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:43:17 +0100 Subject: Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44CB1FA5.6090103@inex.ie> > While this increases flexibility it still has an arbritrary feel to it. > Why 200 assignments? Please see: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html The intention is to replace the completely arbitrary "200 /48's" with "a reasonable number of /48's". In fact, they mean the same thing, because any LIR can have a *plan* to assign 200 x /48s, regardless of whether this plan is ever going to be implemented or not. But this is not particularly relevant to proposal 2005-08. Nick From Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk Fri Jul 28 11:53:20 2006 From: Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk (Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:53:20 +0100 Subject: Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy) In-Reply-To: <44CB1FA5.6090103@inex.ie> Message-ID: Hi Nick, address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net wrote on 29/07/2006 09:43:17: > > While this increases flexibility it still has an arbritrary feel to it. > > Why 200 assignments? > > Please see: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html > > The intention is to replace the completely arbitrary "200 /48's" with "a > reasonable number of /48's". In fact, they mean the same thing, because > any LIR can have a *plan* to assign 200 x /48s, regardless of whether > this plan is ever going to be implemented or not. I agree with the change in wording in 2006-02, but I don't think they amount to the same thing. The 200 x /48s acts as a psychological barrier preventing many people from asking for IPv6, and none of us wants to lie to the hostmasters, do we? > > But this is not particularly relevant to proposal 2005-08. > True, and I felt I should point out that I didn't support that part of 2005-08. Ian From president at ukraine.su Fri Jul 28 12:06:24 2006 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:06:24 +0400 Subject: Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44C9E1A0.9040304@ukraine.su> Hi Ian! Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk wrote: > I agree with the change in wording in 2006-02, but I don't think they > amount to the same thing. The 200 x /48s acts as a psychological barrier > preventing many people from asking for IPv6, and none of us wants to lie > to the hostmasters, do we? If we are taking actions to pervent people asking (so - using) IPv6 when it is only a funny toy now - why and how it will be in real life production in the future? P.S. Does RIPE/RIPE NCC have "PR-department" or so to make policies, adversitement, press-releases, propagation, etc for all of the new things and technologies invented by RIPE? If not, why? If yes - why I don't hear anything about it? ;) Invent a cool thing is only a half of a deal, the second half is make world beleave in it! -- WBR, Maxim V. Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From president at ukraine.su Fri Jul 28 12:07:19 2006 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:07:19 +0400 Subject: Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44C9E1D7.6060508@ukraine.su> Hi Ian! Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk wrote: > I agree with the change in wording in 2006-02, but I don't think they > amount to the same thing. The 200 x /48s acts as a psychological barrier > preventing many people from asking for IPv6, and none of us wants to lie > to the hostmasters, do we? If we are taking actions to pervent people asking (so - using) IPv6 when it is only a funny toy now - why and how it will be in real life production in the future? P.S. Does RIPE/RIPE NCC have "PR-department" or so to make policies, adversitement, press-releases, propagation, etc for all of the new things and technologies invented by RIPE? If not, why? If yes - why I don't hear anything about it? ;) Invent a cool thing is only a half of a deal, the second half is make world believe in it! -- WBR, Maxim V. Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From dennis at gippnet.com Fri Jul 28 12:58:12 2006 From: dennis at gippnet.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dennis_Lundstr=F6m?=) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:58:12 +0200 Subject: Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44C9EDC4.5020307@gippnet.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi. Don't think 200 /48 is totally unrealistic. There is a point in keeping the global ipv6 routing table small. Things however depends on how rapidly the industry will adapt ipv6 into their equipment. Also In the near future we will without a doubt see more connected household appliances. At the moment It's really, really hard to predict growth rate. I would say 200 /48 within 2 years.. Maybe, maybe not :-) Best regards. - --Dennis Lundstr?m GippNET AB (AS34537) Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk wrote: > Hi, > > Both of these proposals change the onus on an LIR from having "... > a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other > organisations within two years." to having "... a plan for making > at least 200 assignments to other organisations within two years." > > While this increases flexibility it still has an arbritrary feel to > it. Why 200 assignments? > > I can see that this is meant to prevent the numberspace becoming > too fractured, so reducing the size of the routing table. However, > I worry that it may have the side effect of imposing a hierarchy of > ISPs within IPv6 that does not meet the requirements of smaller > organisations. It seems there is little interest at present within > the larger UK-based ISPs in providing IPv6, (with the exception of > NTT-Verio), and this change won't affect that. Is there a better > way to encourage the uptake of IPv6 without preventing exponential > routing table growth? > > Ian > > ----- Forwarded by Ian Meikle/Nominet on 27/07/06 15:53 ----- > > > > Filiz Yilmaz Sent by: > address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net 27/07/06 12:42 Please respond to > filiz at ripe.net > > > To policy-announce at ripe.net cc Hans Petter Holen , > Kurtis Lindqvist , Geoff Huston > , address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject > [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published > (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement > Policy) > > > > > > > > PDP Number: 2005-08 Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and > Utilisation Requirement Policy > > > Dear Colleagues > > As you might remember, it was decided during RIPE 51 that the > proposal described in 2005-08, "Proposal to Amend the IPv6 > Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy" should be split into > two parts. > > Accordingly, we have published two draft documents. > > You can find the draft documents at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-08-56s.html defining > allocation efficiency measurement unit as /56 > > and > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-08-hd-ratio.html > changing the HD ratio value to 0.94 > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08.html > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any > comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 24 August 2006. > > Kind regards, > > Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD4DBQFEye3EsqJZaeZjsn8RAlyUAJdVueQfvepLitYfGUaND84k/Ov9AJ4m13Yn tp49EmYUzMbea4NeCLwuvg== =pHiK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk Fri Jul 28 13:09:47 2006 From: Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk (Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:09:47 +0100 Subject: Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy) In-Reply-To: <44C9EDC4.5020307@gippnet.com> Message-ID: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net wrote on 28/07/2006 11:58:12: > Hi. > Don't think 200 /48 is totally unrealistic. There is a point in > keeping the global ipv6 routing table small. > Things however depends on how rapidly the industry will adapt ipv6 > into their equipment. > Also In the near future we will without a doubt see more connected > household appliances. At the moment It's really, really hard to predict > growth rate. I would say 200 /48 within 2 years.. Maybe, maybe not :-) > > Best regards. > > - --Dennis Lundstr?m > GippNET AB (AS34537) Any figure appears arbitrary, and risks imposing a business model on those who want to deploy IPv6 that does not fit their organisation. On the other hand, the lack of a metric makes things harder for RIRs, and I can see why one has been specified, besides the comments already made regarding the size of the global routing table. IPv6 is a hard sell. There is no application that requires it, and nobody worries enough about resource exhaustion until it's too late. This is as true for IPv4 as it is for oil. If we want to encourage adoption then we shouldn't put unreasonable barriers in place. Ian