From president at ukraine.su Sat Nov 3 22:35:11 2007 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:35:11 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <56E83263-ABCA-4532-A761-BCE3C57F7886@muada.com> References: <56E83263-ABCA-4532-A761-BCE3C57F7886@muada.com> Message-ID: <472CE98F.1050701@ukraine.su> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > The value of an IP address is the ability to receive packets from > elsewhere addressed to it. Without a presence in a routing table > someplace, that doesn't happen so the IP address is of no value. Better > give it back so someone else who can instill it with exactly that value > in that case... I have an IP block that is not in the global routing table, but present only in some IXes and private peerings, and it is a feature. This is not mine invention, there is a lot of that blocks. Hint: see the number of prefixes in the "full-view" taken from different parts of the Net. It will be slightly different. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From president at ukraine.su Sat Nov 3 22:40:31 2007 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:40:31 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20071023092028.141B42F583@herring.ripe.net> <20071023102602.GY34650@Space.Net> <472509CE.10202@ukraine.su> <9B3962BE-6B2F-4D72-9D12-91294EDEF1AE@muada.com> <6DB9F629-0AFF-4C34-B5E5-601466596CE6@icann.org> <4725F286.5090905@titley.com> Message-ID: <472CEACF.6090608@ukraine.su> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >> Leo has already proved that a (fairly simple) reclamation job takes a >> lot of time and resource. This is for a /8 that no one much wanted and >> no one much used. > > Was that the 14/8 thing? Only 129 individual addresses out of 16777216 > where used. Maybe just reclaiming the other 16777087 would have been > more efficient. May be. But sorry, you can't enforce it now. You even have no time to make an implemented in the real life policy that can reclaim any block before free IP space will be finished. So, we have to live with market. Not only because of it. The only we can do is to make that market white and clear. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From president at ukraine.su Sat Nov 3 22:42:42 2007 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:42:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <472CEB52.5070303@ukraine.su> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > I'm quickly approaching my posting limit for the day (week?) but I can't > resist telling you the following story: > > I recently found myself somewhere where BitTorrent is severely > throttled. Although I can download over HTTP at megabytes per second, > BitTorrent downloads wouldn't go faster than 10 kilobytes per second. > > Turns out that the newest Azureus (BitTorrent application) supports > IPv6. Enabled this and lo and behold: I got about 75 peers, 5 of which > were IPv6, the rest IPv4. Of the IPv6 peers, one had a regular IPv6 > address, the other four 6to4 addresses. Even though the 70 IPv4 peers > could only give me 10 kB/s, the 5 IPv6 peers pushed my download well > beyond 100 kB/s. May be that's just because of your rating in these peering networks? ;) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Nov 4 05:09:00 2007 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 23:09:00 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) Message-ID: <16291823.1194149340419.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Max and all, why can't it be enforced now? Why can these unused IP's be reclimed or at least parto of them? -----Original Message----- >From: Max Tulyev >Sent: Nov 3, 2007 4:40 PM >To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net >Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) > >Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >>> Leo has already proved that a (fairly simple) reclamation job takes a >>> lot of time and resource. This is for a /8 that no one much wanted and >>> no one much used. >> >> Was that the 14/8 thing? Only 129 individual addresses out of 16777216 >> where used. Maybe just reclaiming the other 16777087 would have been >> more efficient. > >May be. But sorry, you can't enforce it now. You even have no time to >make an implemented in the real life policy that can reclaim any block >before free IP space will be finished. > >So, we have to live with market. Not only because of it. The only we >can do is to make that market white and clear. > >-- >WBR, >Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) > 'Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Nov 4 05:09:37 2007 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 23:09:37 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) Message-ID: <27654198.1194149377392.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Max and all, That's my guess also Max. >;) -----Original Message----- >From: Max Tulyev >Sent: Nov 3, 2007 4:42 PM >To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net >Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) > > >Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >> I'm quickly approaching my posting limit for the day (week?) but I can't >> resist telling you the following story: >> >> I recently found myself somewhere where BitTorrent is severely >> throttled. Although I can download over HTTP at megabytes per second, >> BitTorrent downloads wouldn't go faster than 10 kilobytes per second. >> >> Turns out that the newest Azureus (BitTorrent application) supports >> IPv6. Enabled this and lo and behold: I got about 75 peers, 5 of which >> were IPv6, the rest IPv4. Of the IPv6 peers, one had a regular IPv6 >> address, the other four 6to4 addresses. Even though the 70 IPv4 peers >> could only give me 10 kB/s, the 5 IPv6 peers pushed my download well >> beyond 100 kB/s. > >May be that's just because of your rating in these peering networks? ;) > >-- >WBR, >Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) > 'Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com From president at ukraine.su Sun Nov 4 10:29:51 2007 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 11:29:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <16291823.1194149340419.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <16291823.1194149340419.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <472D910F.6090706@ukraine.su> Because there is no such policy right now. Because it needs some time to develop that policy. And implement it. And enforce world to follow it. RIPE should become roting police, and they don't want. As I understand, THERE IS NO .... WAY TO FORCE RECLAIM ANY DELEGATED ADDRESS SPACE NOW :) And there is also no concrete ways and common policies even to enforce stop somebody starting announce YOUR address space. Sometime I think the first smart and assertive woodpecker will ruin the Net :( jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com wrote: > why can't it be enforced now? Why can these unused IP's > be reclimed or at least parto of them? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From slz at baycix.de Sun Nov 4 10:54:46 2007 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:54:46 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <472D910F.6090706@ukraine.su> References: <16291823.1194149340419.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <472D910F.6090706@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <472D96E6.7000107@baycix.de> Hi, Max Tulyev schrieb: > Because there is no such policy right now. > Because it needs some time to develop that policy. > And implement it. And enforce world to follow it. > RIPE should become roting police, and they don't want. > > As I understand, THERE IS NO .... WAY TO FORCE RECLAIM ANY DELEGATED > ADDRESS SPACE NOW :) > > And there is also no concrete ways and common policies even to enforce > stop somebody starting announce YOUR address space. Sometime I think the > first smart and assertive woodpecker will ruin the Net :( that depends on what you mean by "RIPE" now - the NCC certainly does what the community/members want. But if you mean the RIPE community, you're pretty right - of course 99% commercial thinking LIRs who certainly think a market is more appealing. Heck, i have to pay my bills, too, so i even understand that in general. A policy can be implemented really quickly, just see some of this years policy proposals. But not with all this commercial thinking people on here. That is why democracy sucks, it only works with a majority of competent people, not with a majoriy of incompetent, egoistic populists - just like in any democratic state, too :-) I personally won't ever agree on any price tag on IP addresses, but as (commercial thinking) consultant i'm a realist and know this is already happening ("selling IP Addresess to customers") and it certainly will happen ("re-selling of Allocations"). But i always will raise my voice against any marketplace or anything. Of course, there is no veto right here unfortunately :-) My position here is, the current policies are fine, all allocations and assignments should be need-based, forever. And RIR-resources (manpower) should be allocated on reclaiming unused space. If the community would WANT the RIRs to be routing police, it would be possible to implement that in no time (in theory, in reality you have the legal problems with multiple countries). But that's just not what is going to happen for the given reasons (egoism, incompetence, money...). What i don't get is why we should make that EASY. As commercial thinking consultant i prefer the process to be very complicated so i get more money! What i'm saying here? I don't know, it's sunday. Just want my statement in the mail-archives so i can point to it later if my children ask me why their IT-startup can't get IPv4-addresses because only big companies who are able to pay 1000EUR/IPv4address get all of them and why i wasn't there back than, trying to prevent this marketplace-mess. [again, a bit of sarcasm there, i don't hope that IPv4 is needed that badly anymore in 20years when my possible children possibly get into IT :-)] -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ======================================================================== From president at ukraine.su Sun Nov 4 11:35:58 2007 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:35:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <472D96E6.7000107@baycix.de> References: <16291823.1194149340419.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <472D910F.6090706@ukraine.su> <472D96E6.7000107@baycix.de> Message-ID: <472DA08E.5040609@ukraine.su> Thanks to fate, I can think like technician, like manager and like commercial together :) Let's see it as from manager position. Our goals is 1) to make possibility FORCE reclaim IPs (now I don't even touch ASNs) and 2) give that IPs to other company. For clear delegation reclaimed IPs to other companies RIR should be sure this net is not using anywhere else. So our primary goal is to make a way to force stop using the net in the Internet. Currently there is no way to do that. To make it possible, we should implement the database, or certification system, or something like that and enforce ALL THE WORLD to use it. The funny thing that we can't enforce world to do it now. There is no such policies and methods of using existing force :) So only we can do - to have world want to use that system and actually to implement that system. It is 2-5 years after policy will be accepted, bases created and anything is ready to work. Second disadvantage is complete lose of current net structure. World should believe central registry and follow it. There is no more unity of free independent autonomous networks. There will be a "Megaswitch" that can switch off any net for example by political reasons. Sure it WILL be used for censorship and illegal "competition". Who will maintain that Megaswitch? How? Only AFTER we have working Megaswitch, we can [force] reclaim IPs. But it will be the Other Internet... Sascha Lenz wrote: > A policy can be implemented really quickly, just see some of this years > policy proposals. But not with all this commercial thinking people on > here. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From iljitsch at muada.com Mon Nov 5 12:46:27 2007 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:46:27 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <4727B894.9090500@apnic.net> References: <20071023092028.141B42F583@herring.ripe.net> <20071023102602.GY34650@Space.Net> <472509CE.10202@ukraine.su> <9B3962BE-6B2F-4D72-9D12-91294EDEF1AE@muada.com> <6DB9F629-0AFF-4C34-B5E5-601466596CE6@icann.org> <4725F286.5090905@titley.com> <4727B894.9090500@apnic.net> Message-ID: <01BD26A6-2E2D-4BE3-81E7-198C7AFBD926@muada.com> On 31 okt 2007, at 0:04, Geoff Huston wrote: >>> Leo has already proved that a (fairly simple) reclamation job >>> takes a lot of time and resource. This is for a /8 that no one >>> much wanted and no one much used. >> Was that the 14/8 thing? Only 129 individual addresses out of >> 16777216 where used. Maybe just reclaiming the other 16777087 would >> have been more efficient. >> But I'm pretty sure it's too late anyway, just like it's too late >> to make 240/4 usable. > 14/8 is useable - even with an extremely small number of legacy > allocations, the address block is useable. There is no OS stack that > says "bad address" for 14/8, which is the essential difference > between 14/8 and 240/4. What I meant by "too late" is that a big push to get a good part of the legacy class A blocks back is probably going to take so much time that we won't have the extra space by the time that we're going to need it. Obviously getting "easy" stuff such as 14/8 back is something we can still do. From iljitsch at muada.com Mon Nov 5 13:08:20 2007 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 13:08:20 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <954F7F69-8A1F-4E38-A423-4C29B1953DEC@muada.com> On 31 okt 2007, at 2:08, David Conrad wrote: >>>> About half the ~ 40 legacy /8 assignments don't show up in the >>>> routing table. >>> Which, of course, means precisely nothing. >> The value of an IP address is the ability to receive packets from >> elsewhere addressed to it. Without a presence in a routing table >> someplace, that doesn't happen so the IP address is of no value. > The fact that _you_ can't see a routing announcement for a > particular prefix > does NOT mean the prefix isn't announced somewhere. True. But then do you concede to the basic logic so the only question is which routing table we look at? > There are these things > called "private networks" and they do interconnect outside of the > context of > the "public" Internet. Sure, but is it reasonable for (for instance) the US government to have several percent of the total IPv4 address space and use it for this when we have space set aside for exactly these purposes? Japan is the second country in the world as far as IPv4 address use goes with 140 million addresses (but not for long, China is going insanely fast) which is a bit lower than what the US government holds. Not the US - that would be 1.4 billion addresses out of the 2.55 billion in use - but just the US GOVERNMENT: around 10 /8s. > I make the assumption > that markets are going to exist regardless of whether folks stamp > their feet > and pout about their existence. If we can't do anything about it, why are we having these discussions? > The fact that long prefixes will > undoubtedly be made available could have potential negative > implications, no > question. I'm not that worried. That's only going to be an issue when an ISP that now gets their space in /12 blocks needs to take 256 /20s. I don't think those ISPs will be prepared to pay market price for that much space, NATing customers will be cheaper for them. > However, it would seem best to try to address (pun intended) that > issue directly instead of pointlessly trying to address it > indirectly by > commanding the tide to not come in. Saying there will be a market is harmful regardless of whether it's true, because that way, people will be disinclined to give back the address space they currently hold but don't use. So if there's going to be one, let it be a surprise. >> It requires herculian effort to keep the up-and-coming >> economies happy with the way the internet is currently "run" (if >> there >> is such a thing). > Actually, it doesn't. Your view is somewhat condescending. Folks in > developing countries are as involved in the way the Internet is > currently > "run" (in terms of setting address policy) and are as aware of the > issues as > are folks in developed countries. Read up on the positions of the Chinese and Brazilians (or rather, their governments) on "internet governance". When was that whole circus again? Last year, the one before? >> What is the developing world going to say when they >> have to pay rich American companies for address space--address space >> that those companies got for free? > They will be unhappy. Perhaps a bit less unhappy than being told > "it is > impossible to obtain any additional address space, period", but > perhaps not. I think it's better for poor countries if we're all out, that way it's everyone's problem, not just one for those who can't afford the remaining scraps. Misery loves company. > The reality is that the IPv4 address space is running out and as > long as > there is continued demand for IPv4 address space, there are going to > be > people who are able to obtain address space and some who will not, > regardless of the mechanisms of redistribution. What needs to happen is that for someone doing network planning, it's a better choice to go with IPv6 rather than to fledge the IPv4 horse some more. Any and all time we spend making life post-runout easier is a waste of time and harmful because it only delays the real solution. People are going to do what they're going to do; it's not our jobs to make it easier for them to make shortsighted decisions. >> There are STILL people that refuse to bother implementing IPv6 in >> their products, > And WHY are they not implementing IPv6? Because there is no customer > demand. No, it's because they can get away with it. People like Cisco are still selling routers with no 32-bit AS support even though this is a minor update that they've had around for years and we KNOW we'll need this 14 months from now. > Why is there no customer demand? Because IPv6 provides no technical > incentive over IPv4. Since there are no technical incentives, it > would seem > the next best option is financial incentives. What is your > alternative? If there are no incentives there is no reason to do anything. Hence the current situation. No more IPv4 addresses will be an incentive soon enough. What needs to happen is that vendors prepare for that and don't _wait_ until customers have trouble.? From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 14:14:39 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 16:14:39 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <954F7F69-8A1F-4E38-A423-4C29B1953DEC@muada.com> References: <954F7F69-8A1F-4E38-A423-4C29B1953DEC@muada.com> Message-ID: Gents, On 11/5/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 31 okt 2007, at 2:08, David Conrad wrote: > > > Actually, it doesn't. Your view is somewhat condescending. Folks in > > developing countries are as involved in the way the Internet is > > currently > > "run" (in terms of setting address policy) and are as aware of the > > issues as > > are folks in developed countries. > > Read up on the positions of the Chinese and Brazilians (or rather, > their governments) on "internet governance". When was that whole > circus again? Last year, the one before? Still an ongoing debate: http://info.intgovforum.org/wsl3.php?listy=CIR especially: http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=37 -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim From filiz at ripe.net Mon Nov 5 14:21:22 2007 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:21:22 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 Proposal Accepted (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy) Message-ID: <20071105132122.100A12F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2005-08 Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy Dear Colleagues Consensus has been reached on the proposal described in 2005-08 and it is accepted by the RIPE community. This proposal is to amend the RIPE IPv6 address allocation policies regarding the definition of the default size of End Site allocations, the threshold value for End Site allocation efficiency, and the method of calculation of the End Site allocation efficiency metric. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08.html We will implement this new policy in approximately three weeks and notify you when it becomes effective. Thank you for your input. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From gih at apnic.net Mon Nov 5 18:27:16 2007 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:27:16 +1100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <954F7F69-8A1F-4E38-A423-4C29B1953DEC@muada.com> References: <954F7F69-8A1F-4E38-A423-4C29B1953DEC@muada.com> Message-ID: <472F5274.5050105@apnic.net> Let me just comment on one thing here... Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > Saying there will be a market is harmful regardless of whether it's > true, because that way, people will be disinclined to give back the > address space they currently hold but don't use. So if there's going to > be one, let it be a surprise. You are talking about giving an industry that is valued in the trillions of dollars a "surprise"? I'm sorry but thats just not an option here - we simply need to make this process of extending the useable life of IPv4 work as best we can beyond the exhaustion point of the unallocated address pool. We need to do it in the open, we need to do it with the assistance and cooperation of many others, we need to do it so that the network can continue to operate as best as it can, and we need to do our bit to get the industry get itself out of this rather professionally constructed hole! Geoff From iljitsch at muada.com Mon Nov 5 22:37:17 2007 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 22:37:17 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <472F5274.5050105@apnic.net> References: <954F7F69-8A1F-4E38-A423-4C29B1953DEC@muada.com> <472F5274.5050105@apnic.net> Message-ID: On 5 nov 2007, at 18:27, Geoff Huston wrote: >> Saying there will be a market is harmful regardless of whether it's >> true, because that way, people will be disinclined to give back the >> address space they currently hold but don't use. So if there's >> going to be one, let it be a surprise. > You are talking about giving an industry that is valued in the > trillions of dollars a "surprise"? To avoid a harmful self-fulfilling prophecy: absolutely. Everyone knows IPv4 addresses are running out. Trying to outsmart ourselves coming up with clever things to do after that happens is at best a waste of time. I'm not impressed with your trillions, by the way. (Not even sure how many zeroes that has in English.) The telcos see so much money flow through their hands because they hold the cables/frequencies needed by people to communicate, and because they know how to bill people. Being able to route packets or timeslots is only an afterthought in those processes and the telcos aren't exactly good at doing that. (Typing this on my unconnected laptop three weeks after signing up for DSL service and not even gotten a contract or a vague promise of a delivery date.) > I'm sorry but thats just not an option here - we simply need to make > this process of extending the useable life of IPv4 work as best we > can beyond the exhaustion point of the unallocated address pool. What we should be doing is minimizing the pain - not making it last as long as possible. Every day, every hour, every minute that someone has to spend doing work to get address space or wait for address space hurts our industry. We still have a billion plus addresses to burn though, and we should do exactly that using the current policies. Those aren't great, but they are the devil we know. Any action we take regarding the situation after that isn't going to magically create a few hundred million new IPv4 addresses every year, so it's going to be suboptimal in some way or another, no matter what we do. Personally, I'm never going to sign off on a situation where on the one hand, we say that it's too hard to reclaim legacy space, but on the other hand, it's ok that the holders of that space get to make money from it. But I expect this issue to be largely moot because the large ISPs ( ~= telcos) that are responsible for 90% of the yearly IPv4 address consumption are too cheap to buy IP addresses for a price that makes it worth HP et al their time to renumber anyway. > We need to do it in the open, we need to do it with the assistance > and cooperation of many others, we need to do it so that the network > can continue to operate as best as it can, and we need to do our bit > to get the industry get itself out of this rather professionally > constructed hole! If only at some point in the 1990s a group of engineers had been tasked with coming up with a technology to keep IP going after the 32- bit IPv4 address space has been depleted... From juanfelo at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 09:31:56 2007 From: juanfelo at gmail.com (Juan Felipe Botero Vega) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 03:31:56 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Hi, i need information Message-ID: Hi, I am working in a common project between the UPC (University Polithecnic of Catalonia, Spain) and Heanet (Ireland's National Education and Research Network). I know this is not a RPSL forum, but i need to know something about this language. In the RFC 2622 RPSL is well defined, but i don't have clear if it is possible to use RPSL for internal routing. My question is: is it possible to use RPSL to perform the following actions: 1. Configure a router announcing it's the networks it has connected to. 2. Configure the routing protocols in each router (this question depends directly of the previous one) 3. Configure the *routing policies *inside the network (i am not referring to BGP policies but policies of access control in each router inside a network). This could be applied also to OSPF areas?? Thanks for your attention. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Wed Nov 7 10:04:13 2007 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:04:13 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Hi, i need information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47317F8D.6000703@CC.UniVie.ac.at> I think this question would b better suited for the Routing WG List and/or maybe Database? I have cc'd the Routing List, and when you agree with me, please remove Address-Policy from the cc-List when replying :-) Cheers, Wilfried Juan Felipe Botero Vega wrote: > Hi, I am working in a common project between the UPC (University Polithecnic > of Catalonia, Spain) and Heanet (Ireland's National Education and Research > Network). > > I know this is not a RPSL forum, but i need to know something about this > language. > > In the RFC 2622 RPSL is well defined, but i don't have clear if it is > possible to use RPSL for internal routing. My question is: is it possible to > use RPSL to perform the following actions: > > 1. Configure a router announcing it's the networks it has connected to. > 2. Configure the routing protocols in each router (this question depends > directly of the previous one) > 3. Configure the *routing policies *inside the network (i am not referring > to BGP policies but policies of access control in each router inside a > network). This could be applied also to OSPF areas?? > > > > Thanks for your attention. > From pawal at blipp.com Wed Nov 7 10:34:59 2007 From: pawal at blipp.com (Patrik Wallstrom) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:34:59 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] Commercial IPv6 firewall support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071107093459.GD20254@vic20.blipp.com> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > Some people have claimed that they cannot yet sell > IPv6 Internet access because there is no IPv6 firewall > support. According to this ICANN study: > http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac021.pdf > this is not quite true. At least 30% of the 42 vendors > surveyed, had IPv6 support. > > According to this talk > -IPv6-Firewalling-PeterBieringer-Talk.pdf> > many open-source and commercial firewalls supporting IPv6 are available. > > IPCop is based on Linux > > > m0n0wall is based on FreeBSD > > > pfSense is also based on FreeBSD > > > FWBuilder is a management tool that builds filter setups for > several different firewalls. > [...] I am not really sure this list contains routers that really really supports tested IPv6 routing, or just of those that say they do. For example FWBuilder here does not support IPv6 other than (from the changelog in the latest version) "... option to the firewall settings dialog for iptables that controls whether compiler should skip generation of the code to set default policy of all ipv6 chains to DROP", and that is all v6 support there I can find. -- patrik_wallstrom->foodfight->pawal at blipp.com->+46-733173956 From president at ukraine.su Mon Nov 12 20:59:52 2007 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:59:52 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <472F5274.5050105@apnic.net> References: <954F7F69-8A1F-4E38-A423-4C29B1953DEC@muada.com> <472F5274.5050105@apnic.net> Message-ID: <4738B0B8.2050008@ukraine.su> Geoff Huston wrote: > Let me just comment on one thing here... > > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >> >> Saying there will be a market is harmful regardless of whether it's >> true, because that way, people will be disinclined to give back the >> address space they currently hold but don't use. So if there's going >> to be one, let it be a surprise. > > You are talking about giving an industry that is valued in the trillions > of dollars a "surprise"? Yes, it WILL be a BIG surprise for a majority of LIRs when "No more IPs left!" will be replied from RIPE NCC to their request! I think, for ~90% of them it will. So for that time we should have established rules for IP market :) -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From filiz at ripe.net Mon Nov 26 14:37:37 2007 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:37:37 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-09 New Policy Proposal (Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool) Message-ID: <20071126133737.9E99A2F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2007-09 Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This policy will establish a process for RIR-to-RIR redistribution of the tail-end of the IPv4 pool, taking effect after the IANA Reserve is exhausted. Each redistribution Allocation will be triggered by the recipient RIR depleting its reserve to a 30 day supply, and will result in up to a 3 month supply being transferred from the RIR with the longest remaining time before it exhausts its own pool. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-09.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 24 December 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Tue Nov 27 12:35:40 2007 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:35:40 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] /24 in Europe, AP and North America? Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20071127133128.00ae5050@efes.iucc.ac.il> This may have been covered before but I'm not sure. I have a client that needs a /24 in Europe, a /24 in AP and a /24 in North America - all for multihoming purposes (in each area). If he becomes a RIPE member, can he get the 3 /24s and 3 ASNs of which only one set will be used in Europe? Or just get the /19 like everyone else, and carve it into 3 chunks and route them each from a different area? Thanks, Hank From andy at nosignal.org Wed Nov 28 13:14:40 2007 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:14:40 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] /24 in Europe, AP and North America? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20071127133128.00ae5050@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20071127133128.00ae5050@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: On 27 Nov 2007, at 11:35, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > This may have been covered before but I'm not sure. I have a > client that needs a /24 in Europe, a /24 in AP and a /24 in North > America - all for multihoming purposes (in each area). If he > becomes a RIPE member, can he get the 3 /24s and 3 ASNs of which > only one set will be used in Europe? Or just get the /19 like > everyone else, and carve it into 3 chunks and route them each from > a different area? It's normally a /21, which is enough for eight /24 networks - with a caveat. Some networks, to reduce the effects of deaggregation on their routing table size, will filter on the cidr boundaries that RIPE use as minimum allocation size. If you went down the PA route, the addresses would come from a range which some people filter to a /21 smallest subnet size. If you go down the PI route, you will be burning through less IP space and additionally will get your addresses from a range that people are less likely to filter /24s in. Andy From filiz at ripe.net Wed Nov 28 14:30:39 2007 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:30:39 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 Implementation Message-ID: <474D6D7F.4090106@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate e-mails.] Dear Colleagues, We previously announced that the policy proposal 2005-08, "Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy" had been accepted by the RIPE community. This policy has now been implemented by the RIPE NCC and the following RIPE Documents have been published: ripe-421, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-421.html ripe-422, "Supporting Notes for the IPv6 First Allocation Request Form" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-422.html ripe-425, "IPv6 First Allocation Request Form" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-425.html Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From president at ukraine.su Fri Nov 30 00:50:07 2007 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 01:50:07 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] /24 in Europe, AP and North America? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20071127133128.00ae5050@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20071127133128.00ae5050@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <474F502F.6000006@ukraine.su> Hank, it seems you are probably our future customer fit all demands just to have 3 /24 PI. You will not waste /21 then. By the way, 1 AS number will be enough for all three points. Hank Nussbacher wrote: > This may have been covered before but I'm not sure. I have a client > that needs a /24 in Europe, a /24 in AP and a /24 in North America - all > for multihoming purposes (in each area). If he becomes a RIPE member, > can he get the 3 /24s and 3 ASNs of which only one set will be used in > Europe? Or just get the /19 like everyone else, and carve it into 3 > chunks and route them each from a different area? > > Thanks, > Hank -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From dmitry at volia.net Fri Nov 30 08:56:26 2007 From: dmitry at volia.net (Dmitry Kiselev) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:56:26 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] /24 in Europe, AP and North America? In-Reply-To: <474F502F.6000006@ukraine.su> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20071127133128.00ae5050@efes.iucc.ac.il> <474F502F.6000006@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <20071130075626.GG21922@f17.dmitry.net> Hello! On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 01:50:07AM +0200, Max Tulyev wrote: > Hank, > > it seems you are probably our future customer fit all demands > just to have 3 /24 PI. You will not waste /21 then. > > By the way, 1 AS number will be enough for all three points. Max, is far as I know Your company provide services for RIPE region only. According to Address Policy and original message that guys should asks each /24 PI from APNIC, RIPE NCC and ARIN. You couldn't help them without RIPE Policy violation. In other hand, becoming LIR and allocation split doesn't conflicts with Policy. Moreover, LIR may asks for just /22 allocation that will fits actual needs. > > This may have been covered before but I'm not sure. I have a client > > that needs a /24 in Europe, a /24 in AP and a /24 in North America - all > > for multihoming purposes (in each area). If he becomes a RIPE member, > > can he get the 3 /24s and 3 ASNs of which only one set will be used in > > Europe? Or just get the /19 like everyone else, and carve it into 3 > > chunks and route them each from a different area? -- Dmitry Kiselev