From filiz at ripe.net Mon Apr 2 12:26:28 2007 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:26:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 16 April 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy) Message-ID: <20070402102628.E2B7A2F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2006-02 IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy Dear Colleagues The text of the policy proposal 2006-02 has changed. We have published the new version today, as a result the discussion period for this proposal has been extended until 16 April 2007. This proposal is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria and the End Site definition in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy". You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to . Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From shane at time-travellers.org Mon Apr 2 13:34:55 2007 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:34:55 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 16 April 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy) In-Reply-To: <20070402102628.E2B7A2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20070402102628.E2B7A2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20070402113455.GA23979@borg.c-l-i.net> I like the proposed change, as is. It seems a good idea to make IPv6 space easier to get. Not really related to this specific proposed change, but maybe it is time to start thinking about making IPv4 space harder to get, too. On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 12:26:28PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2006-02 > IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Mon Apr 2 13:42:57 2007 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:42:57 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 16 April 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy) In-Reply-To: <20070402113455.GA23979@borg.c-l-i.net> References: <20070402102628.E2B7A2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20070402113455.GA23979@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <4610EC41.4060806@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Shane Kerr wrote: > I like the proposed change, as is. So do I, I'd like to state my support for this proposal. This version is pretty clean, consistent and concise, imho. > It seems a good idea to make IPv6 space easier to get. > > Not really related to this specific proposed change, but maybe it is > time to start thinking about making IPv4 space harder to get, too. > > On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 12:26:28PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > >>PDP Number: 2006-02 >>IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy > > >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html > > > Wilfried. From jeroen at unfix.org Mon Apr 2 15:00:47 2007 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:00:47 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 16 April 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy) In-Reply-To: <20070402113455.GA23979@borg.c-l-i.net> References: <20070402102628.E2B7A2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20070402113455.GA23979@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <4610FE7F.2080007@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Shane Kerr wrote: > I like the proposed change, as is. > > It seems a good idea to make IPv6 space easier to get. It sure does look quite a bit better, still..... > Not really related to this specific proposed change, but maybe it is > time to start thinking about making IPv4 space harder to get, too. > > On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 12:26:28PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: >> PDP Number: 2006-02 >> IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy > >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html I, of course, have a couple of comments ;) This change allows *ANY* LIR to request a /32. Thus as long as one pays LIR fees, which is a good thing, one can get a /32, which is a bad thing. In effect we don't really have to look at conserving address space, there is 'enough', but there are already doubts about the /48 rule being to big for most end-sites. As such, there should be a little teeny extra add-on here specifying that: 8<-------------------------- Based on actual need, either a /48 for a single site, a /40 for a site which will provide connectivity to a estimated maximum of 64 sites, or a /32 or larger for any site that can prove the need for more address space --------------------------->8 Which makes the IPv6 policy similar to the IPv4 policy: a minimum of a /48, which equals more or less the IPv4 /24, a middle step of a /40 for multi-site businesses, e.g. a hotel with 64 sites or a company with 64 sites etc. Anything above that gets a /32 and will then have to show an adequate plan to get more address space, as already currently the practice. The /40 can be dropped IMHO, but having a middle-step might be nice to have. Probably a /36, 4096 sites, is more convenient to fit most gloves. Still these are arbitrary numbers: it does give the LIR the address space they need and not sees of it which will never be used. (Remember that from a /48 most likely maybe a 100 /64's will be used at a site, depending on structure blabla, so we are wasting a lot of address space there already, and one can split up a /48 into multiple /56's etc) The 'split' (/48,/40,8 This latter one to actually make people use route6 objects (looking at GRH it seems that people ignore them) and a try get rid of static filtering of prefixes simply based on prefix lengths; when ISP's can reliably auto-generate them from the IRR, ISP's will start using them. Using the tools we have might be a nice start to keep the BGP tables a bit clean, doesn't one think? And on the route6 subject, the text contains: 8<------------------------------- advertise the allocation that they will receive as a single prefix if the prefix is to be used on the Internet; ------------------------------->8 But one CAN generate route6 objects with smaller prefixes, there is also no requirement that if a smaller prefix is stuck in a route6 object, that there is a route6 object which covers the whole prefix that was allocated by to the LIR. Thus, I mean if there is a route6 object for 2001:db8::/40 then the route6 object for 2001:db8::/32 should also exist, if the latter doesn't exist the creation of the first should be denied, and as long as there is a more specific route6 object the first can't be taken out of the IRR. Last but not least actually verifying that the /32 is getting announced in BGP. This to avoid breaking that simple line and allowing other ISP's to filter on the /32 and thus ignore the more specifics, which is (afaik) the intention of this line in the text. Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 311 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From slz at baycix.de Mon Apr 2 14:54:35 2007 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:54:35 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 16 April 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy) In-Reply-To: <20070402102628.E2B7A2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20070402102628.E2B7A2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4610FD0B.1070509@baycix.de> Hi, Filiz Yilmaz schrieb: > PDP Number: 2006-02 > IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy > > Dear Colleagues > > The text of the policy proposal 2006-02 has changed. > > We have published the new version today, as a result the discussion > period for this proposal has been extended until 16 April 2007. [...] Look fine, everything we mentioned in the last discussion round seems to be there, i'm happy and support it. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ======================================================================== From slz at baycix.de Mon Apr 2 14:46:53 2007 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:46:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 16 April 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy) In-Reply-To: <20070402113455.GA23979@borg.c-l-i.net> References: <20070402102628.E2B7A2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20070402113455.GA23979@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <4610FB3D.1020105@baycix.de> Hi, Shane Kerr schrieb: [...] > It seems a good idea to make IPv6 space easier to get. right. > Not really related to this specific proposed change, but maybe it is > time to start thinking about making IPv4 space harder to get, too. IMHO wrong. The only real selling point for IPv6 is "there is no IPv4 anymore". So my p.o.v. is - waste IPv4, as fast as possible. Probably even make it easier to get. What's the whole point in delaying the End-Of-IPv4 much further (it's not even crititcal at the moment btw, still enough there for years to come) if there is real&working IPv6 out there nowerdays? And anyways, makes no sense - this will only make work harder for LIRs and Hostmaster, hence more expensive, and probably even worsen all the NAT idiocy out there - or just increase the amount of lies to RIPE NCC. ...my 0.02EUR, not considering possible problems lack of "fresh" IPv4 space will cause ("you can have my /24 for 500000 bucks on ebay!!!"), but that's a general problem regardless of WHEN it runs out. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ======================================================================== From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Tue Apr 3 21:50:20 2007 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:50:20 +0300 Subject: [policy-announce] [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 16 April 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy) In-Reply-To: <20070402102628.E2B7A2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: Hi all, Small explanation about this. When we completed the last discussion period on v2 of this policy proposal, I was intending to continue with the review phase, under the assumption that it will be much better to move ahead on the implementation of the policy and then, come back to take one by one the comments received as possible new modifications to the policy. A kind of "let's move on now because there is consensus in the list that even if the text is not perfect, we are in the right path". However, discussing with the chairs, which clearly shows to be a good thing according to the inputs already received on this new version, they considered that additional two weeks with a new version will not harm the move ahead, and obviously avoids one additional long cycle with the policy in the future. So here we are, and again, tried to include the latest inputs, making it simpler. One more, thanks to all those which are so patient to keep going with this long thread ! Regards, Jordi > De: Filiz Yilmaz > Responder a: > Fecha: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:26:28 +0200 > Para: > CC: Gert Doering , Jordi Palet Martinez > , "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" > > Asunto: [policy-announce] [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Discussion Period > extended until 16 April 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy) > > PDP Number: 2006-02 > IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy > > Dear Colleagues > > The text of the policy proposal 2006-02 has changed. > > We have published the new version today, as a result the discussion > period for this proposal has been extended until 16 April 2007. > > This proposal is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria and > the End Site definition in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and > Assignment Policy". > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments > to . > > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC > Policy Development Officer > > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From s.steffann at computel.nl Wed Apr 4 23:20:57 2007 From: s.steffann at computel.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 23:20:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 16 April 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy) References: <20070402102628.E2B7A2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <003301c776ff$22f7c630$b4c8a8c0@sanderthuis> Hi, > We have published the new version today, as a result the discussion > period for this proposal has been extended until 16 April 2007. > > This proposal is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria and > the End Site definition in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and > Assignment Policy". I would also like to state my support. Sander From filiz at ripe.net Thu Apr 5 15:21:26 2007 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:21:26 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Proposal Accepted (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size) Message-ID: <20070405132126.BA7FB2F59E@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2006-07 First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size Dear Colleagues Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2006-07 has been accepted by the RIPE community. This proposal suggests the Assignment Window (AW) available to new LIRs should automatically be raised from zero (0) to /21 (2,048 IPv4 addresses) six months after they receive their first allocation. Because the sub-allocation policy references the AW policy, the sub-allocation policy also needs to be updated. This proposal suggests that the maximum sub-allocation should be kept at /20 (4,096 IPv4 addresses). You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-07.html Thank you for your input. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From alexlh at ripe.net Tue Apr 10 11:56:57 2007 From: alexlh at ripe.net (Alex Le Heux) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:56:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New RIPE NCC IPv4 blocks pingable addresses Message-ID: [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleages, The IANA recently allocated the IPv4 address ranges 92/8 and 93/8 to the RIPE NCC. The following pingable addresses are now available in these blocks: 92.192.0.1 92.255.248.1 93.192.0.1 93.255.248.1 More information regarding the debogonising project can be found here: http://www.ris.ripe.net/debogon/ Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC IP Resource Analyst From smb at cs.columbia.edu Tue Apr 10 17:35:27 2007 From: smb at cs.columbia.edu (Steven M. Bellovin) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:35:27 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: New RIPE NCC IPv4 blocks pingable addresses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070410153527.8506076664C@berkshire.machshav.com> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:56:57 +0200 Alex Le Heux wrote: > > [Apologies for duplicate emails] > > Dear Colleages, > > The IANA recently allocated the IPv4 address ranges 92/8 and 93/8 to > the RIPE NCC. > > The following pingable addresses are now available in these blocks: > > 92.192.0.1 > 92.255.248.1 > 93.192.0.1 > 93.255.248.1 I was relieved to read the body of this note -- from the subject line, I thought that RIPE was blocking pings to certain addresses... --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb From flor at ripe.net Thu Apr 12 17:30:13 2007 From: flor at ripe.net (Flor Paredes) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:30:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Implementation: First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size Message-ID: <461E5085.5060700@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate e-mails.] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that the policy proposed in proposal 2006-07: 'First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size' will come into effect on 7 June, 2007. This proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-07.html We will also publish the new 'IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region' document on this day. This document will be available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html Best regards, Flor de Maria Paredes Mattos Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC From webmaster at ripe.net Wed Apr 18 10:30:00 2007 From: webmaster at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:30:00 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New Document available: RIPE-405 Message-ID: <20070418083000.DFE732F583@herring.ripe.net> New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new document is available from the RIPE Document Store. Ref: ripe-405 Title: IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region Author: RIPE NCC Date: April 2007 Format: PDF=82,541 Obsoletes: ripe-387 Short content description ------------------------- This document describes the RIPE community?s current IPv4 address allocation and assignment policies. They were developed through a bottom-up, consensus driven, open policy development process in the RIPE Address Policy Working Group (AP WG). The RIPE Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) facilitates and supports this process. These policies apply to the RIPE NCC and the Local Internet Registries (LIRs) within the RIPE NCC service region. Accessing the RIPE Document Store --------------------------------- You can access this RIPE Documents in HTML format at: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-405.html Regards RIPE NCC Webmaster From filiz at ripe.net Thu Apr 19 16:02:55 2007 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:02:55 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Message-ID: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2007-01 Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and the RIPE NCC must be established before the End User receives Internet number resources (Autonomous System (AS) Number, Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 and IPv6 Internet Exchange Point (IXP) and anycasting assignments) directly from the RIPE NCC. It also states that the text in the policy should mention more explicitly that PI assignments can't be sub-assigned. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 17 May 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From president at ukraine.su Thu Apr 19 16:23:06 2007 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:23:06 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <46277B4A.7040607@ukraine.su> Hi All, I object this proposal. You know, in ex-USSR and especially Asian countries there is a VERY difficult (for small companies and NGOs that are main PI holders - sometime impossible at all) to have contracts and payments outside country. Instead of that, I propose just to change the billing scheme of LIRs and score PI and ASN by a very small rate (i.e. 1 scoring unit) next years after registration. This will have LIRs to maintain agreements with end-users and have end-users to return unused PI/ASN to RIPE. In this case, all contracts and money transfers will be domestic for PI/ASN holders. Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2007-01 > Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC > > Dear Colleagues > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End > User and the RIPE NCC must be established before the End User > receives Internet number resources (Autonomous System (AS) Number, > Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 and IPv6 Internet Exchange Point > (IXP) and anycasting assignments) directly from the RIPE NCC. It > also states that the text in the policy should mention more > explicitly that PI assignments can't be sub-assigned. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 17 May 2007. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC > Policy Development Officer > -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Thu Apr 19 17:33:01 2007 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:33:01 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <46278BAD.20605@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2007-01 > Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC [...] > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 17 May 2007. After reading it for the 1st time, and not spending too much time on playing sandbox to understand (most of) the effects, I have one quick comment: "This proposal does not discuss any particular details of the contract that should be set up between the End User and the RIPE NCC." I cannot agree with that statement, because the overall terms and (financial) conditions of such a contract will (and should) have some influence on the future status of LIRs and the RIPE NCC. "The RIPE NCC Executive Board will decide on *the details* of this contract." [emphasis added by me] Indeed, but the general blueprint of such a contract needs to be discussed in the context of this proposal. Including the (potentially) voting rights associated with such a contract. > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC > Policy Development Officer In general, I somewhat like the idea behind this proposal. Regards, Wilfried. From fw at deneb.enyo.de Thu Apr 19 17:27:16 2007 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:27:16 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> (Filiz Yilmaz's message of "Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:02:55 +0200") References: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <87647sv0yz.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * Filiz Yilmaz: > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html The section which intends to clarify the role of sub-assignments does not deal with early-registration address space. From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Thu Apr 19 18:16:21 2007 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:16:21 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <87647sv0yz.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> References: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> <87647sv0yz.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: <462795D5.2020603@CC.UniVie.ac.at> [ reply distribution addresses trimmed - WW ] Florian Weimer wrote: > * Filiz Yilmaz: > > >>You can find the full proposal at: >> >> http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html > > > The section which intends to clarify the role of sub-assignments does > not deal with early-registration address space. > > Could or should it do that? As I read it, it also does not (easily) apply to PI assignments made before the effective date of this policy - if it gets consensus at all. My feeling is (ah address council hat put on :-) ) that it would need a Global Policy exercise (ICANN/ASO speak) to get a hold on legacy stuff. Or at least a globally coordinated set of regional policies. Wilfried. From leo.vegoda at icann.org Fri Apr 20 10:05:59 2007 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:05:59 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <46277B4A.7040607@ukraine.su> References: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> <46277B4A.7040607@ukraine.su> Message-ID: Max, On Apr 19, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Max Tulyev wrote: > > I object this proposal. > > You know, in ex-USSR and especially Asian countries there is a VERY > difficult (for small companies and NGOs that are main PI holders - > sometime impossible at all) to have contracts and payments outside > country. This is a very real issue and must be addressed. However... > Instead of that, I propose just to change the billing scheme of > LIRs and > score PI and ASN by a very small rate (i.e. 1 scoring unit) next years > after registration. > > This will have LIRs to maintain agreements with end-users and have > end-users to return unused PI/ASN to RIPE. In this case, all contracts > and money transfers will be domestic for PI/ASN holders. ... your suggestion does not resolve the issue of maintaining a link between the NCC and the resource holder when the LIR is closed for non-payment. I'm not sure how many LIRs that have requested PI or ASN assignments for customers have been closed for non-payment. If the number is significant then a another solution is needed while still addressing the legitimate issue you've raised about issues with international contracts. Regards, -- Leo Vegoda IANA Numbers Liaison From president at ukraine.su Fri Apr 20 16:34:05 2007 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:34:05 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: References: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> <46277B4A.7040607@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <4628CF5D.7000402@ukraine.su> Leo Vegoda wrote: >> This will have LIRs to maintain agreements with end-users and have >> end-users to return unused PI/ASN to RIPE. In this case, all contracts >> and money transfers will be domestic for PI/ASN holders. > > ... your suggestion does not resolve the issue of maintaining a link > between the NCC and the resource holder when the LIR is closed for > non-payment. I'm not sure how many LIRs that have requested PI or ASN > assignments for customers have been closed for non-payment. If the > number is significant then a another solution is needed while still > addressing the legitimate issue you've raised about issues with > international contracts. This solution can be the possibility to move PI from one LIR to another in this case. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From leo.vegoda at icann.org Fri Apr 20 16:55:23 2007 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:55:23 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <4628CF5D.7000402@ukraine.su> References: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> <46277B4A.7040607@ukraine.su> <4628CF5D.7000402@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <8C8ED1A3-CF92-45ED-8D22-8DE83C3F11CF@icann.org> On Apr 20, 2007, at 4:34 PM, Max Tulyev wrote: > Leo Vegoda wrote: >>> This will have LIRs to maintain agreements with end-users and have >>> end-users to return unused PI/ASN to RIPE. In this case, all >>> contracts >>> and money transfers will be domestic for PI/ASN holders. >> >> ... your suggestion does not resolve the issue of maintaining a link >> between the NCC and the resource holder when the LIR is closed for >> non-payment. I'm not sure how many LIRs that have requested PI or ASN >> assignments for customers have been closed for non-payment. If the >> number is significant then a another solution is needed while still >> addressing the legitimate issue you've raised about issues with >> international contracts. > > This solution can be the possibility to move PI from one LIR to > another > in this case. Which LIR? The LIR stopped paying bills and doesn't have staff any more. There is no-one to confirm the orderly transfer of responsibility for the resources. The string connecting the resource holders to the RIPE NCC snapped. The point at which a new LIR pops up and claims responsibility for the resources is the ideal moment to hijack them. I am not sure how serious a problem this is as I do not know the rate of churn for LIRs in countries for which you have expressed concerns. It could be that it is a very small risk affecting a tiny number of registrations per year. On the other hand, it could be a more significant problem. If the RIPE NCC could provide statistics for LIR churn, particularly LIRs that have requested PI assignments or ASNs for customers, that would be very helpful. Regards, -- Leo Vegoda IANA Numbers Liaison From president at ukraine.su Fri Apr 20 17:05:55 2007 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:05:55 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <8C8ED1A3-CF92-45ED-8D22-8DE83C3F11CF@icann.org> References: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> <46277B4A.7040607@ukraine.su> <4628CF5D.7000402@ukraine.su> <8C8ED1A3-CF92-45ED-8D22-8DE83C3F11CF@icann.org> Message-ID: <4628D6D3.1010002@ukraine.su> Leo Vegoda wrote: > Which LIR? The LIR stopped paying bills and doesn't have staff any more. > There is no-one to confirm the orderly transfer of responsibility for > the resources. The string connecting the resource holders to the RIPE > NCC snapped. The point at which a new LIR pops up and claims > responsibility for the resources is the ideal moment to hijack them. We all believe RIPE DB data is correct ;) RIPE NCC can contact them and say "Bad thing happened. You should find a new LIR within [period of time]. Here is a list of LIRs in your region:". I also believe it is a very rare case and can be processed manually. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From slz at baycix.de Sat Apr 21 02:14:23 2007 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:14:23 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4629575F.8050004@baycix.de> Hay, Filiz Yilmaz schrieb: > PDP Number: 2007-01 > Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC > > Dear Colleagues > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. [...] for the time being i DO NOT support the proposal as it is. Reasons: - The proposal lacks some nescessary (IMHO) details about the contract ect. (Wilfried pointed that out to some extent) I won't sing off on such a policy change without a descent view onto what it will mean in the reality if it concerns contractual issues. Vague policies are fine for technical stuff :) but not when it comes to contracts. - Explore other (LIR based?) options? While i'm perfectly fine with some kind of contractual relationship that allows the RIPE NCC (or a LIR?) to reclaim PI space/AS Numbers/etc. (for whatever reason), we don't really need to just copy the ARIN policy here, you know. With the actual situation in Russia - probably otherwhere too, it might make more sense to look into another concept, probably somehow like DENIC (.de ccTLD) handles it for Domains here (someone correct me if i talk rubbish here): (1) Contractual relationship is basically with the RIPE NCC, but maintained by a (local?) LIR under normal circumstances (2) Requests and payments are done through a LIR much like it is now (3) If the LIR is shut down the PI/AS/etc. customers get a - whatever - 90day notice from RIPE NCC to 'attach' their object to another LIR of their liking, or continue to pay RIPE directly (this might probably be way more expensive to make it unlikely to happen?). If the customer doesn't do that, RIPE NCC can revoke the assignment(s) after the grace period. (4) If the customer is not paying or not reachable, the LIR can "hand back" the assignment(s) to the RIPE NCC (==> basically continue with(3)) do i make any sense? :-) Note: this is a "2 o'clock in the morning idea" and not a fully fledged proposal of course. P.S.: The "no [sub-|re-]assignment clarification" is ok for me. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ======================================================================== From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Apr 21 08:08:58 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:08:58 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <4628D6D3.1010002@ukraine.su> References: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> <46277B4A.7040607@ukraine.su> <4628CF5D.7000402@ukraine.su> <8C8ED1A3-CF92-45ED-8D22-8DE83C3F11CF@icann.org> <4628D6D3.1010002@ukraine.su> Message-ID: Hi Max, On 4/20/07, Max Tulyev wrote: > Leo Vegoda wrote: > > Which LIR? The LIR stopped paying bills and doesn't have staff any more. > > There is no-one to confirm the orderly transfer of responsibility for > > the resources. The string connecting the resource holders to the RIPE > > NCC snapped. The point at which a new LIR pops up and claims > > responsibility for the resources is the ideal moment to hijack them. > > We all believe RIPE DB data is correct ;) this policy seems to be aimed at making it more correct, which seems to be a good thing IMO. I support this policy. > RIPE NCC can contact them and say "Bad thing happened. You should find a > new LIR within [period of time]. Here is a list of LIRs in your region:". Why does an LIR need to be involved? As far as payment, it seems that PayPal or it's brethren could be used. I'd be comfortable leaving contract implementation details to NCC staff. Sascha, I think your plan might be too complex. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim From president at ukraine.su Sat Apr 21 15:21:20 2007 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:21:20 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: References: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> <46277B4A.7040607@ukraine.su> <4628CF5D.7000402@ukraine.su> <8C8ED1A3-CF92-45ED-8D22-8DE83C3F11CF@icann.org> <4628D6D3.1010002@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <462A0FD0.80309@ukraine.su> McTim wrote: >> RIPE NCC can contact them and say "Bad thing happened. You should find a >> new LIR within [period of time]. Here is a list of LIRs in your region:". > > Why does an LIR need to be involved? As far as payment, it seems that > PayPal or it's brethren could be used. I'd be comfortable leaving > contract implementation details to NCC staff. I know about PayPal, CC, Webmoney etc. Payments can be easy made through this methods. But it is often ILLEGALLY to have foreign contracts and such kind of payments as I said. Do you really want RIPE to force us violate local laws? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Apr 21 13:41:48 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:41:48 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <462A0FD0.80309@ukraine.su> References: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> <46277B4A.7040607@ukraine.su> <4628CF5D.7000402@ukraine.su> <8C8ED1A3-CF92-45ED-8D22-8DE83C3F11CF@icann.org> <4628D6D3.1010002@ukraine.su> <462A0FD0.80309@ukraine.su> Message-ID: Hi Max, On 4/21/07, Max Tulyev wrote: > But it is often ILLEGALLY to have foreign contracts and such kind of > payments as I said. Do you really want RIPE to force us violate local laws? Did I say anything to that effect? How are LIR's able to do it?? I assume that non-LIR's could do the same. I understand it is more difficult to do in Russia, but not impossible. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim From leo.vegoda at icann.org Sat Apr 21 21:37:32 2007 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 15:37:32 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: References: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> <46277B4A.7040607@ukraine.su> <4628CF5D.7000402@ukraine.su> <8C8ED1A3-CF92-45ED-8D22-8DE83C3F11CF@icann.org> <4628D6D3.1010002@ukraine.su> Message-ID: On Apr 21, 2007, at 2:08 AM, McTim wrote: >> > Which LIR? The LIR stopped paying bills and doesn't have staff >> any more. >> > There is no-one to confirm the orderly transfer of >> responsibility for >> > the resources. The string connecting the resource holders to the >> RIPE >> > NCC snapped. The point at which a new LIR pops up and claims >> > responsibility for the resources is the ideal moment to hijack >> them. >> >> We all believe RIPE DB data is correct ;) > > this policy seems to be aimed at making it more correct, which seems > to be a good thing IMO. I support this policy. Which leads to another question... how long should be allowed between reconfirming or renewing the contact information held by the RIPE NCC in its private database of customers and/or the RIPE database? Regards, -- Leo Vegoda IANA Numbers Liaison From president at ukraine.su Mon Apr 23 10:26:04 2007 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:26:04 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: References: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> <46277B4A.7040607@ukraine.su> <4628CF5D.7000402@ukraine.su> <8C8ED1A3-CF92-45ED-8D22-8DE83C3F11CF@icann.org> <4628D6D3.1010002@ukraine.su> <462A0FD0.80309@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <462C6D9C.6030309@ukraine.su> Hi, It is VERY difficult even for large companies. A lot of LIRs still pay illegally (here, not illegally for RIPE). Thanks RIPE NCC, they changed documents for Russian registries to make payments easy (there is Russian translation, Russian account papers etc) and now situation is being changed for Ukraine. But AFAIK NOTHING changed in Belarus or Uzbekistan for example (forget for foreign contracts here if you are not A Very VIP Person). McTim wrote: > Hi Max, > > On 4/21/07, Max Tulyev wrote: > > > >> But it is often ILLEGALLY to have foreign contracts and such kind of >> payments as I said. Do you really want RIPE to force us violate local >> laws? > > Did I say anything to that effect? How are LIR's able to do it?? I > assume that non-LIR's could do the same. I understand it is more > difficult to do in Russia, but not impossible. > -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From filiz at ripe.net Mon Apr 23 15:24:26 2007 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:24:26 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy) Message-ID: <20070423132426.B75702F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2007-02 Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This proposal suggests that there should no longer be a requirement to be a ccTLD or a gTLD to receive IPv4 and IPv6 assignments for anycasting DNS. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-02.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 21 May 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From alexlh at ripe.net Tue Apr 24 14:56:02 2007 From: alexlh at ripe.net (Alex Le Heux) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:56:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New AS Number Block allocated to the RIPE NCC Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the AS Number Block 43008 - 44031 from the IANA in April 2007. You may want to update your records accordingly. Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC From filiz at ripe.net Tue Apr 24 15:35:58 2007 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:35:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-03 New Policy Proposal (IPv4 Countdown Policy) Message-ID: <20070424133558.3DE412F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2007-03 IPv4 Countdown Policy Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This proposal proposes four general principles, which will be needed to accomplish the smooth termination of IPv4 address allocation. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-03.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 22 May 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From gert at space.net Tue Apr 24 15:45:38 2007 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:45:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE 54 WG Agenda -- DRAGT Message-ID: <20070424134538.GG73965@Space.Net> Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place Wednesday, 11:30-12:30 and 14:00-15:30. If there is anything else you want to see on the agenda, please let me/us know! In the plenary section on wednesday, directly preceding the APWG time slot, we will have a presentation from Filiz Yilmaz on ongoing policy work in the RIPE region (summarizing what's going on) and in other regions (so we know what "they" are doing). (Thanks!) regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ----------------------- snip ---------------- A. Administrative Matters (selecting a scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. selection of a new APWG Co-Chair (Sander Steffann is willing to step up, and Hans-Petter Holen is willing to step down, given that HPH's workload doesn't really give him time to do WG chair work anymore) C. Address Policy Proposals in the RIPE Region C.1 - Concluded Proposals (brief overview): Accepted Proposals: - 2006-06: IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period - 2006-07: First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size Withdrawn Proposals: - 2006-04: Contact e-mail Address Requirements C.2 - Ongoing Proposals (time to be spent on discussion): - 2005-08: Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy - 2006-01: Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations - 2006-02: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy - 2006-05: (IPv4) PI Assignment Size C.3 - NEW proposals since RIPE53 (presentation by proposer, if possible, and then some discussion) - 2007-01: Nick Hilliard: Contractual Relationship for Internet Resource Assignments to End User Organisations - 2007-02: Tobias Cremer: amendments to the DNS anycast policy - 2007-03: Maemura Akinori: IPv4 Countdown (preparation) - New Proposal from Piotr Strzyzewski (work in progress) - New Proposal from Jordi Palet for ULA-Central registry/addressing. Z. AOB -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Wed Apr 25 13:41:00 2007 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:41:00 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy) In-Reply-To: <20070423132426.B75702F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20070423132426.B75702F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <462F3E4C.6010502@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Just wondering, this is essentially PI, too, so... would the 2007-01 reasoning and proposal be also applicable here? Wilfried. Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2007-02 > Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy > > Dear Colleagues > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > This proposal suggests that there should no longer be a requirement > to be a ccTLD or a gTLD to receive IPv4 and IPv6 assignments for > anycasting DNS. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-02.html > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 21 May 2007. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC > Policy Development Officer > > From gert at space.net Wed Apr 25 16:22:33 2007 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:22:33 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy) In-Reply-To: <462F3E4C.6010502@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <20070423132426.B75702F583@herring.ripe.net> <462F3E4C.6010502@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20070425142233.GP73965@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 11:41:00AM +0000, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Just wondering, this is essentially PI, too, so... > would the 2007-01 reasoning and proposal be also applicable here? Well, yes-and-no. 2007-01 is only IPv6, while this is IPv4+IPv6, with a special twist "this prefix comes from a certain range set aside for DNS anycast deployment" (to help folks in adjusting their routing filters). Eventually (if we have IPv6 PI) the whole list of exceptions to the RIPE IPv6 policy could be removed, and be replaced by a field on the PI request "please assign from the [ ] DNS anycast [ ] IXP [ ] root DNS address range". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 305 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nick at inex.ie Wed Apr 25 16:44:26 2007 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:44:26 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy) In-Reply-To: <20070425142233.GP73965@Space.Net> References: <20070423132426.B75702F583@herring.ripe.net> <462F3E4C.6010502@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <20070425142233.GP73965@Space.Net> Message-ID: <462F694A.4060901@inex.ie> > Well, yes-and-no. 2007-01 is only IPv6, while [...] 2007-01 applies to ipv4, ipv6 and as numbers. Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick at inex.ie From gert at space.net Wed Apr 25 16:52:05 2007 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:52:05 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy) In-Reply-To: <462F694A.4060901@inex.ie> References: <20070423132426.B75702F583@herring.ripe.net> <462F3E4C.6010502@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <20070425142233.GP73965@Space.Net> <462F694A.4060901@inex.ie> Message-ID: <20070425145205.GQ73965@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 03:44:26PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >Well, yes-and-no. 2007-01 is only IPv6, while [...] > 2007-01 applies to ipv4, ipv6 and as numbers. Sorry. I got all confused with the IPv6 PI proposal (which is 200*6*-01). However, my primary comment still stands :-) - if we end up having IPv6 PI, we can do away with most of the special-case IPv6 policies. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 305 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jorgen at hovland.cx Wed Apr 25 17:00:52 2007 From: jorgen at hovland.cx (=?utf-8?Q?J=C3=B8rgen_Hovland?=) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:00:52 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy) In-Reply-To: <20070425145205.GQ73965@Space.Net> References: <20070423132426.B75702F583@herring.ripe.net> <462F3E4C.6010502@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <20070425142233.GP73965@Space.Net> <462F694A.4060901@inex.ie> <20070425145205.GQ73965@Space.Net> Message-ID: <5FCDC1C5A3A941E7852005C718E619B5@tungemaskin> Why does this proposal say it's for DNS only? I guess other anycast protocols aren't important enough? j -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: 25. april 2007 16:52 To: Nick Hilliard Cc: Gert Doering; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy) Hi, On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 03:44:26PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >Well, yes-and-no. 2007-01 is only IPv6, while [...] > 2007-01 applies to ipv4, ipv6 and as numbers. Sorry. I got all confused with the IPv6 PI proposal (which is 200*6*-01). However, my primary comment still stands :-) - if we end up having IPv6 PI, we can do away with most of the special-case IPv6 policies. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Wed Apr 25 17:02:40 2007 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:02:40 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy) In-Reply-To: <20070425145205.GQ73965@Space.Net> References: <20070423132426.B75702F583@herring.ripe.net> <462F3E4C.6010502@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <20070425142233.GP73965@Space.Net> <462F694A.4060901@inex.ie> <20070425145205.GQ73965@Space.Net> Message-ID: <462F6D90.2040703@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 03:44:26PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >>>Well, yes-and-no. 2007-01 is only IPv6, while [...] >> >>2007-01 applies to ipv4, ipv6 and as numbers. > > > Sorry. I got all confused with the IPv6 PI proposal (which is 200*6*-01). > > However, my primary comment still stands :-) - if we end up having IPv6 PI, > we can do away with most of the special-case IPv6 policies. I think my terse contribution started the confusion, sorry :-/ My point is that we are discussing how to improve the linkage of resources that are *not* PA in 2007-01. That discussion pertains to IPv4 PI and AS numbers. However, 2007-02 applies to resources that are, in effect, portable and handled like IPv4 PI. That was the basis for my question. > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair But it is probably a minor issue and/or premature as we do not know yet if and when 2007-01 reaches consensus, eventually. Wilfried. From gert at space.net Wed Apr 25 17:08:37 2007 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:08:37 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy) In-Reply-To: <5FCDC1C5A3A941E7852005C718E619B5@tungemaskin> References: <20070423132426.B75702F583@herring.ripe.net> <462F3E4C.6010502@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <20070425142233.GP73965@Space.Net> <462F694A.4060901@inex.ie> <20070425145205.GQ73965@Space.Net> <5FCDC1C5A3A941E7852005C718E619B5@tungemaskin> Message-ID: <20070425150837.GU73965@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:00:52PM +0200, J?rgen Hovland wrote: > Why does this proposal say it's for DNS only? The protocol is changing an existing policy document, which has "DNS only" in it. It's not creating new policy. > I guess other anycast protocols aren't important enough? What other anycast protocols are in widespread use today? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From jorgen at hovland.cx Wed Apr 25 17:21:24 2007 From: jorgen at hovland.cx (=?utf-8?Q?J=C3=B8rgen_Hovland?=) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:21:24 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy) In-Reply-To: <20070425150837.GU73965@Space.Net> References: <20070423132426.B75702F583@herring.ripe.net> <462F3E4C.6010502@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <20070425142233.GP73965@Space.Net> <462F694A.4060901@inex.ie> <20070425145205.GQ73965@Space.Net> <5FCDC1C5A3A941E7852005C718E619B5@tungemaskin> <20070425150837.GU73965@Space.Net> Message-ID: <95FDC301E1234D21A83F3969966E6AF3@tungemaskin> -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:00:52PM +0200, J?rgen Hovland wrote: >> Why does this proposal say it's for DNS only? > >The protocol is changing an existing policy document, which has "DNS only" >in it. It's not creating new policy. I understand. >> I guess other anycast protocols aren't important enough? > >What other anycast protocols are in widespread use today? I assume very few, but I was more curious and I'm not objecting to anything. I am not too fond of policies that are so restricted to certain types of technology. It may prevent innovative and/or competitive new solutions to be deployed to the masses. So sometimes I wonder why IP assignment policies specify layer 7 technology at all. j From gert at space.net Wed Apr 25 17:35:58 2007 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:35:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy) In-Reply-To: <95FDC301E1234D21A83F3969966E6AF3@tungemaskin> References: <20070423132426.B75702F583@herring.ripe.net> <462F3E4C.6010502@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <20070425142233.GP73965@Space.Net> <462F694A.4060901@inex.ie> <20070425145205.GQ73965@Space.Net> <5FCDC1C5A3A941E7852005C718E619B5@tungemaskin> <20070425150837.GU73965@Space.Net> <95FDC301E1234D21A83F3969966E6AF3@tungemaskin> Message-ID: <20070425153558.GV73965@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:21:24PM +0200, J?rgen Hovland wrote: > I am not too fond of policies that are so restricted to certain > types of technology. It may prevent innovative and/or competitive > new solutions to be deployed to the masses. So sometimes I wonder > why IP assignment policies specify layer 7 technology at all. When that policy was made, people heavily objected to any sort of "direct to the end user" (= PI) IPv6 assignments, but still, there was a well-defined need for this specific application. To be able to reach consensus between the DNS group ("we need this! now!") and the conservationists ("keep the flood gates closed!"), this policy was done in a very targeted way, with a limited scope. Similar for IXP and Root DNS policies. As I said before - if the IPv6 PI policy goes through, we can move all the special-case policies to the big heap of historic garbage. If not, we'll have to live with a few exceptions that the ``majority'' of this group agrees upon. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 305 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcremer at cw.net Thu Apr 26 11:53:51 2007 From: tcremer at cw.net (Tobias Cremer) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:53:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy) In-Reply-To: <462F3E4C.6010502@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <20070423132426.B75702F583@herring.ripe.net> <462F3E4C.6010502@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <463076AF.5030607@cw.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 25.04.2007 13:41, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Just wondering, this is essentially PI, too, so... > would the 2007-01 reasoning and proposal be also applicable here? Actually it is applied to the current policy texts: See item "2. Additions". Only the term "TLD" would have to be removed in order to make 2007-01 applicable to a possibly accepted proposal 2007-02. Regards: Tobias - -- Tobias Cremer M.A. IP Admin Engineer Cable & Wireless Telecommunication Services GmbH Landsbergerstr. 155 80687 Muenchen Germany Tel +49 89 926 99 0 -- FAX +49 89 926 99 180 -- COMNET 7 49 9169 Gesch?ftsf?hrer Francois Goreux, Richard Pennal Amtsgericht M?nchen HRB 146 617 www.cw.com/de - -- Every message GnuPG signed -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGMHavhC6y11CNwvcRAqqfAKDG1ECwzJ9bNg8wvU0VZdnU4dbamQCgjoSe 7r09je6DnBUCKTEkKLSUzag= =1/wg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From flor at ripe.net Fri Apr 27 10:57:20 2007 From: flor at ripe.net (Flor Paredes) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:57:20 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <8C8ED1A3-CF92-45ED-8D22-8DE83C3F11CF@icann.org> References: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> <46277B4A.7040607@ukraine.su> <4628CF5D.7000402@ukraine.su> <8C8ED1A3-CF92-45ED-8D22-8DE83C3F11CF@icann.org> Message-ID: <4631BAF0.1030400@ripe.net> Dear Leo, Listed below is the number of LIRs closed due to non-payment since 2005: Year 2005 total: 210 Year 2006 total: 195 Year 2007 total (to date): 122 The top three countries in terms of LIRs closed due to non-payment are: 2005: UK: 32, RU: 29, DE: 18 2006: UK: 48, RU: 33, DE: 11 2007 (to date): RU: 28, UK: 21, NL: 7 Note that as of 31 March 2007, RU (701), UK (571) and DE (537) are the top three countries in our region in terms of total number of members. Total membership as of 31 March 2007 is 4847. Regards, Flor de Maria Paredes Mattos RS Manager RIPE NCC Leo Vegoda wrote: > On Apr 20, 2007, at 4:34 PM, Max Tulyev wrote: > >> Leo Vegoda wrote: >>>> This will have LIRs to maintain agreements with end-users and have >>>> end-users to return unused PI/ASN to RIPE. In this case, all contracts >>>> and money transfers will be domestic for PI/ASN holders. >>> >>> ... your suggestion does not resolve the issue of maintaining a link >>> between the NCC and the resource holder when the LIR is closed for >>> non-payment. I'm not sure how many LIRs that have requested PI or ASN >>> assignments for customers have been closed for non-payment. If the >>> number is significant then a another solution is needed while still >>> addressing the legitimate issue you've raised about issues with >>> international contracts. >> >> This solution can be the possibility to move PI from one LIR to another >> in this case. > > Which LIR? The LIR stopped paying bills and doesn't have staff any > more. There is no-one to confirm the orderly transfer of > responsibility for the resources. The string connecting the resource > holders to the RIPE NCC snapped. The point at which a new LIR pops up > and claims responsibility for the resources is the ideal moment to > hijack them. > > I am not sure how serious a problem this is as I do not know the rate > of churn for LIRs in countries for which you have expressed concerns. > It could be that it is a very small risk affecting a tiny number of > registrations per year. On the other hand, it could be a more > significant problem. > > If the RIPE NCC could provide statistics for LIR churn, particularly > LIRs that have requested PI assignments or ASNs for customers, that > would be very helpful. > > Regards, > > --Leo Vegoda > IANA Numbers Liaison > > From gert at space.net Mon Apr 30 17:25:16 2007 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:25:16 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <4629575F.8050004@baycix.de> References: <20070419140255.BFEC62F583@herring.ripe.net> <4629575F.8050004@baycix.de> Message-ID: <20070430152516.GS73965@Space.Net> Hi, On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 02:14:23AM +0200, Sascha Lenz wrote: > With the actual situation in Russia - probably otherwhere too, it might > make more sense to look into another concept, probably somehow like > DENIC (.de ccTLD) handles it for Domains here (someone correct me if i > talk rubbish here): I think this is a good approach, and should work for all countries where LIRs can find a way to make a contract with the RIPE NCC. Max, is that something that would work in your environment? I don't know the legal obstacles in Russia, Ukraine, etc. well enough to be sure it would work out. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279