From lrinetti at libero.it Mon Aug 4 17:08:27 2008 From: lrinetti at libero.it (lrinetti at libero.it) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 17:08:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IP Address Management Message-ID: Dear Sirs, i'm looking for a document like: "address-policy for dummies" to better understand how manage public IP address spaces, giving my low level experience in this world. I need this information for my new job in a little ISP in Italy. Thank You and Best Regards Luciano lrinetti at libero.it From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Wed Aug 6 23:44:56 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 23:44:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations Message-ID: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E64DF@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> [ This email is *not* about 2007-08 but something else that crossed my mind, expect a revised 2007-08 soon ] Dear all, I want to hear your feedback on an idea that I've been playing with for a while - it has to do with the way the RIR allocates blocks of space to an approved IPv4 PA allocation request. Currently that's very simple. Once the request is approved for, say, a /15, you get a single routable block of space, a /15. But what do we do when the RIR does not have that size block anymore? Allocate multiple blocks to that request (so, for example, 2 /17s, 1 /18, 5 /19s and 2 /20s)? What I would suggest is that we set into policy that the RIR, in cases like this, allocates a single best-fit routable block of IPv4 space. So, if the request is for a /12 and the biggest block the RIR has left is a /14, you get a /14. The rationale behind this is quite simple: the requester is not going to be happy to get a bunch of /24s from all over the swamp space to fill his request, and at the same time we remove the risk that a single request is able to wipe out the entire RIR reserves. Smaller requests can still be fulfilled and the LIRs that need more space simply need to come back more often - the 80% usage rule still applies. As long as the RIR has a supply from IANA, this rule will have no operational impact as far as I can see. I'm hesitant whether we should apply this to PI requests as well - I'd say yes but that does have an impact on the way we're currently handling that... Let me know what you think. Best, Remco Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Thu Aug 7 10:34:20 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:34:20 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations In-Reply-To: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E64DF@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E64DF@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: <20080807083420.GW19694@Space.Net> Hi Remco, On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 11:44:56PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote: > What I would suggest is that we set into policy that the RIR, in cases > like this, allocates a single best-fit routable block of IPv4 space. So, > if the request is for a /12 and the biggest block the RIR has left is a > /14, you get a /14. I can see the rationale, and I also think that it makes sense to do it that way, operationally. I'm not sure whether this is something the APWG can/should decide - it's borderland between "policy" and "procedure". We do policy, the NCC does procedure... "Feedback, please!" :) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 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 matthew.ford at bt.com Thu Aug 7 10:46:24 2008 From: matthew.ford at bt.com (matthew.ford at bt.com) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:46:24 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations In-Reply-To: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E64DF@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: Remco, If it's a choice between [2 /17s, 1 /18, 5 /19s and 2 /20s] and [1 /17 and a note that says 'come back when you need more'], I'll take the former every time. I don't agree that a 'requester is not going to be happy to to get a bunch of /24s from all over the swamp space to fill their request' - they are going to be happy if that's all there is available. Preventing a single request from wiping out the remaining RIR reserves can more easily be prevented by some policy along the lines of 'no more than x% of remaining reserves', coupled with some lower bound. Regards, Mat > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Remco van Mook > Sent: 06 August 2008 22:45 > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations > > [ This email is *not* about 2007-08 but something else that > crossed my mind, expect a revised 2007-08 soon ] > > > > Dear all, > > > > I want to hear your feedback on an idea that I've been > playing with for a while - it has to do with the way the RIR > allocates blocks of space to an approved IPv4 PA allocation request. > > > > Currently that's very simple. Once the request is approved > for, say, a /15, you get a single routable block of space, a > /15. But what do we do when the RIR does not have that size > block anymore? Allocate multiple blocks to that request (so, > for example, 2 /17s, 1 /18, 5 /19s and 2 /20s)? > > > > What I would suggest is that we set into policy that the RIR, > in cases like this, allocates a single best-fit routable > block of IPv4 space. So, if the request is for a /12 and the > biggest block the RIR has left is a /14, you get a /14. The > rationale behind this is quite simple: the requester is not > going to be happy to get a bunch of /24s from all over the > swamp space to fill his request, and at the same time we > remove the risk that a single request is able to wipe out the > entire RIR reserves. Smaller requests can still be fulfilled > and the LIRs that need more space simply need to come back > more often - the 80% usage rule still applies. > > > > As long as the RIR has a supply from IANA, this rule will > have no operational impact as far as I can see. > > > > I'm hesitant whether we should apply this to PI requests as > well - I'd say yes but that does have an impact on the way > we're currently handling that... > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > Best, > > > > Remco From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Thu Aug 7 11:12:19 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:12:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E64DF@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> <20080807083802.GB636@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6508@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Shane wrote: > > What I would suggest is that we set into policy that the RIR, in > > cases like this, allocates a single best-fit routable block of IPv4 > > space. > Makes sense. > Could someone submit another request immediately afterwards though, > since current policies are based on need? That's why I referred to the 80% rule in my mail - if you again qualify for another allocation you can come back for one. If that's immediate, it's immediate. I do think that you raise a valid point here - should allocations in that phase still be based on need or does 'share the pain' come into play? Best, Remco Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com From shane at time-travellers.org Thu Aug 7 10:38:02 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:38:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations In-Reply-To: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E64DF@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E64DF@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: <20080807083802.GB636@borg.c-l-i.net> Remco, On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 11:44:56PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote: > I want to hear your feedback on an idea that I've been playing with > for a while - it has to do with the way the RIR allocates blocks of > space to an approved IPv4 PA allocation request. > What I would suggest is that we set into policy that the RIR, in > cases like this, allocates a single best-fit routable block of IPv4 > space. Makes sense. Could someone submit another request immediately afterwards though, since current policies are based on need? -- Shane From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Thu Aug 7 11:22:42 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:22:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations References: Message-ID: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E650C@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Mat wrote: > Preventing a single request from wiping out the remaining RIR reserves > can more easily be prevented by some policy along the lines of 'no more > than x% of remaining reserves', coupled with some lower bound. I can see where you're coming from with this. However, any percentage scheme is going to be fraught with implementation complexity. I'd rather have a clear, well-defined limit than one that arguably depends on what time of day you filed your request (or when the request was approved - what counts?) How far do we go? Will we allocate /28s to fill that percentage? Please don't. Doing it my way will allow the NCC to put up a webpage saying 'the current largest block we hand out is a /xx'. Very transparent, very educational for your users and a very visible sign that they ought to move to IPv6. Best, Remco Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com From randy at psg.com Thu Aug 7 11:22:46 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:22:46 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <489ABEE6.4060805@psg.com> > Preventing a single request from wiping out the remaining RIR reserves > can more easily be prevented by some policy along the lines of 'no more > than x% of remaining reserves', coupled with some lower bound. you may find to small, but it's one approach. the core to this one is that, at the end, one may want to keep tiny bits still available to our grandchildren (and yes, i have them). randy From matthew.ford at bt.com Thu Aug 7 12:12:44 2008 From: matthew.ford at bt.com (matthew.ford at bt.com) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:12:44 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations In-Reply-To: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6508@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: Remco, > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Remco van Mook > Sent: 07 August 2008 10:12 > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations > > > Could someone submit another request immediately afterwards though, > > since current policies are based on need? > > That's why I referred to the 80% rule in my mail - if you > again qualify > for another allocation you can come back for one. If that's immediate, > it's immediate. What's the point? If I qualify for a /15 and I want a /15 but all the RIR has available is a bunch of /18s, I'll take those /18s. That sucks but it doesn't suck as much as if I have to make 8 applications to get those /18s. From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Thu Aug 7 12:34:07 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:34:07 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations References: Message-ID: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6518@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> The point is quite simple - why bother being strict in allocating small blocks when in the end you're going to hand them over to a single request anyway. I don't want anyone filing a request that cleans out the cupboard in one go. If that's what the community wants, fine. But somehow I don't think so. We can also do a 'one size fits all' trick, or how about saying any organization (note that I'm not saying LIR here) is not allowed more than x% of the TOTAL space in that RIR region? Those /18s are not going to save BT or any other super-duper-large LIR from drowning but they might have a significant impact on the less gigantic or maybe, shock, new entrants. Or maybe we should just allow the space to run out as quickly as we can so new mechanisms can establish themselves de facto, rather than arguing about the inevitable. (yes that's a 2007-08 reference) Best, Remco -----Original Message----- From: matthew.ford at bt.com [mailto:matthew.ford at bt.com] Sent: donderdag 7 augustus 2008 12:13 To: Remco van Mook; shane at time-travellers.org Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations Remco, > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Remco van Mook > Sent: 07 August 2008 10:12 > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations > > > Could someone submit another request immediately afterwards though, > > since current policies are based on need? > > That's why I referred to the 80% rule in my mail - if you > again qualify > for another allocation you can come back for one. If that's immediate, > it's immediate. What's the point? If I qualify for a /15 and I want a /15 but all the RIR has available is a bunch of /18s, I'll take those /18s. That sucks but it doesn't suck as much as if I have to make 8 applications to get those /18s. Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Thu Aug 7 12:39:29 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:39:29 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E64DF@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> <20080807083420.GW19694@Space.Net> Message-ID: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6519@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Hi Gert, Actually not a bad idea not to put it through the policy process :-) Best, Remco -----Original Message----- From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at Space.Net] Sent: donderdag 7 augustus 2008 10:34 To: Remco van Mook Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations Hi Remco, On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 11:44:56PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote: > What I would suggest is that we set into policy that the RIR, in cases > like this, allocates a single best-fit routable block of IPv4 space. So, > if the request is for a /12 and the biggest block the RIR has left is a > /14, you get a /14. I can see the rationale, and I also think that it makes sense to do it that way, operationally. I'm not sure whether this is something the APWG can/should decide - it's borderland between "policy" and "procedure". We do policy, the NCC does procedure... "Feedback, please!" :) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 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 Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Thu Aug 7 12:46:56 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:46:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E650C@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E651B@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Raymond wrote: > > Doing it my way will allow the NCC to put up a webpage saying 'the > > current largest block we hand out is a /xx'. Very transparent, very > > educational for your users and a very visible sign that they ought to > > move to IPv6. > I personally think this will only increase the effort to get that biggest > block availlable, in a time when v4 is running out, i think some will use > any trick availlable to get the last free (v4) ip:s. I think this will happen regardless. Waiting for a strategic moment to file that /large request is currently the obvious way to ensure this and is what I'm trying to prevent. Best, Remco Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com From raymond.jetten at elisa.fi Thu Aug 7 11:38:53 2008 From: raymond.jetten at elisa.fi (Raymond Jetten) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:38:53 +0300 (EEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations In-Reply-To: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E650C@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E650C@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Remco van Mook wrote: > Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:22:42 +0200 > From: Remco van Mook > To: matthew.ford at bt.com > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations > > Mat wrote: > >> Preventing a single request from wiping out the remaining RIR reserves >> can more easily be prevented by some policy along the lines of 'no > more >> than x% of remaining reserves', coupled with some lower bound. > > I can see where you're coming from with this. However, any percentage > scheme is going to be fraught with implementation complexity. I'd rather > have a clear, well-defined limit than one that arguably depends on what > time of day you filed your request (or when the request was approved - > what counts?) How far do we go? Will we allocate /28s to fill that > percentage? Please don't. > > Doing it my way will allow the NCC to put up a webpage saying 'the > current largest block we hand out is a /xx'. Very transparent, very > educational for your users and a very visible sign that they ought to > move to IPv6. I personally think this will only increase the effort to get that biggest block availlable, in a time when v4 is running out, i think some will use any trick availlable to get the last free (v4) ip:s. > > Best, > > Remco > > > Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. > > This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com > > ************************************************************ Raymond Jetten ??? Phone: +358 3 41024 139 Tietoliikenneasiantuntija Fax: +358 3 41024 199 Elisa Oyj / Verkonhallinta IP/MPLS Mobile: +358 45 6700 139 Hermiankatu 3A?? ?????????? raymond.jetten at elisa.fi FIN-33720, TAMPERE????????? http://www.elisa.fi ************************************************************ From Richard.Cox at btuser.net Thu Aug 7 16:47:27 2008 From: Richard.Cox at btuser.net (Richard Cox) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:47:27 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations In-Reply-To: <20080807083420.GW19694@Space.Net> References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E64DF@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> <20080807083420.GW19694@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 08:34 UTC Gert Doering wrote: > I'm not sure whether this is something the APWG can/should decide > - it's borderland between "policy" and "procedure". We do policy, > the NCC does procedure... "Feedback, please!" :) My feedback is that we're still missing the complete picture. If we make it "difficult" for users to be allocated large IP ranges then at least some of those users will simply announce ranges which they believe are not being used, without the luxury of allocation. Right now that's already being done by or for some criminal-types, and I'd guess this behaviour will soon spread to less-scrupulous entities, leaving the reputable organisations out in the cold. We need some agreements in place - at least with backbone providers - if we are to retain any semblance of order in the IPv4 numberspace. -- Richard (who is now back after a rather longer period of convalescence than I would have wished to have been required!) From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Thu Aug 7 17:10:35 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 17:10:35 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E64DF@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> <20080807083420.GW19694@Space.Net> Message-ID: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6561@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Hi Richard, In all honesty I don't know what you mean with 'the complete picture' because the complete picture can only be drawn up in hindsight. Making good decisions after the fact is easy but beside the point. I'm voicing an idea about how to proceed when we can't allocate large IP ranges anymore the way we do today. A practical idea for us to provide guidance rather than have the NCC figure that one out for themselves. What that has to do with criminal types, unscrupulous providers and bright-faced 'backbone providers' is beyond me. A semblance of order is having a functional registry for ALL IPv4 address space - not just the stuff that has been originally allocated by the RIRs or predecessors. And this is something these 'backbone providers' vehemently oppose. Yes, this is another 2007-08 reference. Best, Remco -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Richard Cox Sent: donderdag 7 augustus 2008 16:47 To: Gert Doering Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 08:34 UTC Gert Doering wrote: > I'm not sure whether this is something the APWG can/should decide > - it's borderland between "policy" and "procedure". We do policy, > the NCC does procedure... "Feedback, please!" :) My feedback is that we're still missing the complete picture. If we make it "difficult" for users to be allocated large IP ranges then at least some of those users will simply announce ranges which they believe are not being used, without the luxury of allocation. Right now that's already being done by or for some criminal-types, and I'd guess this behaviour will soon spread to less-scrupulous entities, leaving the reputable organisations out in the cold. We need some agreements in place - at least with backbone providers - if we are to retain any semblance of order in the IPv4 numberspace. -- Richard (who is now back after a rather longer period of convalescence than I would have wished to have been required!) Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com From hph at oslo.net Thu Aug 7 17:04:51 2008 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:04:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-03 Last Call for Comments (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space) In-Reply-To: <20080722152301.327E62F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080722152301.327E62F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <489B0F13.5040805@oslo.net> Dear working group members, I would like to draw your attention to this proposal and the fact that the last call period ends shortly. As this is a global policy proposal it is in progress also in the other regions - and from todays Address council meeting I understand that it is likekly that this policy will pass in most of the other regions. You can review the background report at http://aso.icann.org/docs/index3.html As I believe this is an important proposal - I urge you all to consider if you think the current policy is sufficient to run to the end or if this proposal will make planning towards the end easier. As a separate point we should also start to think about our own regional policy m- on what to do with the remaining address space when we approach the end in our region. It is important that you state if you support this proposal to this list during the last call period. Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen ICANN Address council member from the RIPE NCC region > PDP Number: 2008-03 > Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space > > Dear Colleagues, > > The proposal described in 2008-03 is now at its Concluding Phase. > The Address Policy Working Group Chairs determined that the working group > reached consensus at the end of the Review Phase, so the proposal is now > moved to a Last Call for Comments. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-03.html > > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net > before 19 August 2008. > > Regards, > > Filiz Yilmaz > > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > From randy at psg.com Thu Aug 7 17:58:57 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:58:57 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations In-Reply-To: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6518@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6518@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: <489B1BC1.5000704@psg.com> Remco van Mook wrote: > The point is quite simple - why bother being strict in allocating small > blocks when in the end you're going to hand them over to a single > request anyway. then don't randy From drc at virtualized.org Thu Aug 7 18:27:40 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:27:40 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations In-Reply-To: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6518@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6518@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: <94CBF5B8-867E-43AF-844E-8BF393BAAEA1@virtualized.org> Remco, >>>> Could someone submit another request immediately afterwards though, >>>> since current policies are based on need? >>> if you again qualify for another allocation you can come back for >>> one. If >>> that's immediate, it's immediate. >> What's the point? If I qualify for a /15 and I want a /15 but all the >> RIR has available is a bunch of /18s, I'll take those /18s. > The point is quite simple - why bother being strict in allocating > small > blocks when in the end you're going to hand them over to a single > request anyway. I don't want anyone filing a request that cleans out > the > cupboard in one go. So, you're proposing the addition of increased administrative overhead (in the form of requiring multiple applications for address space to obtain the amount of address space originally requested) as a mechanism to reduce the demand on the fragmented pool? Thanks, -drc From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Thu Aug 7 18:50:56 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 18:50:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6518@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> <94CBF5B8-867E-43AF-844E-8BF393BAAEA1@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E656A@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Hi David, I'm not sure how big the extra overhead will be - my estimate is not a lot - but putting it that way, that is indeed what I'm suggesting. Allocating all the fragments to a single request or small number of requests is in my opinion the worst possible thing we could do with it. Alternatively we could take the 'one size fits all' approach as has been proposed in the APNIC region as referred to by Randy. Best, Remco -----Original Message----- From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] Sent: donderdag 7 augustus 2008 18:28 To: Remco van Mook Cc: matthew.ford at bt.com; shane at time-travellers.org; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations Remco, >>>> Could someone submit another request immediately afterwards though, >>>> since current policies are based on need? >>> if you again qualify for another allocation you can come back for >>> one. If >>> that's immediate, it's immediate. >> What's the point? If I qualify for a /15 and I want a /15 but all the >> RIR has available is a bunch of /18s, I'll take those /18s. > The point is quite simple - why bother being strict in allocating > small > blocks when in the end you're going to hand them over to a single > request anyway. I don't want anyone filing a request that cleans out > the > cupboard in one go. So, you're proposing the addition of increased administrative overhead (in the form of requiring multiple applications for address space to obtain the amount of address space originally requested) as a mechanism to reduce the demand on the fragmented pool? Thanks, -drc Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com From randy at psg.com Thu Aug 7 18:56:14 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:56:14 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations In-Reply-To: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E656A@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6518@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> <94CBF5B8-867E-43AF-844E-8BF393BAAEA1@virtualized.org> <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E656A@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: <489B292E.6030608@psg.com> > Alternatively we could take the 'one size fits all' approach as has been > proposed in the APNIC region as referred to by Randy. you may want to actually read the apnic proposal to which you are referring. it is only for the last /8 randy From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Thu Aug 7 20:17:36 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 20:17:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6518@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> <94CBF5B8-867E-43AF-844E-8BF393BAAEA1@virtualized.org> <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E656A@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> <489B292E.6030608@psg.com> Message-ID: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E656D@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> I have read it and I understand that it's only about the last /8. I apologise for not making a more elaborate and eloquent reference. But considering the scenario, wouldn't you agree that I'm also talking about the same timeframe? AFAIK we don't have any significant number of requests for PA larger than a /8 (fortunately) And it is a 'one size fits all' approach :-) Remco -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] Sent: donderdag 7 augustus 2008 18:56 To: Remco van Mook Cc: David Conrad; matthew.ford at bt.com; shane at time-travellers.org; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations > Alternatively we could take the 'one size fits all' approach as has been > proposed in the APNIC region as referred to by Randy. you may want to actually read the apnic proposal to which you are referring. it is only for the last /8 randy Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com From hph at oslo.net Thu Aug 7 20:33:43 2008 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:33:43 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <487C8BF6.4080709@inex.ie> References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87zloo15vc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <487B81AF.1050407@inex.ie> <487B8E80.6030005@nethinks.com> <487C72E3.7030707@titley.com> <487C73F2.9020101@psg.com> <20080715101706.GA11038@Space.Net> <487C7C57.5010501@psg.com> <487C7F02.3070609@inex.ie> <487C8358.2040809@psg.com> <487C8BF6.4080709@inex.ie> Message-ID: <489B4007.5000600@oslo.net> Nick Hilliard wrote: >> i just looked at arin's front page, saw the link in big blue on the >> right hand side, and found the link prominently noted on the linked >> page. >> >> > > Indeed. In fact, I had downloaded this document a full two minutes > before sending my previous email, looked at section 9, decided that it > was pretty unobjectionable, and therefore thought that this probably > wasn't what you were talking about. Clearly, we find different things > objectionable. I guess this is because that some early registration holders did get the address space without such a clause. -hph From drc at virtualized.org Thu Aug 7 22:31:13 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:31:13 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations In-Reply-To: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E656A@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6518@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> <94CBF5B8-867E-43AF-844E-8BF393BAAEA1@virtualized.org> <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E656A@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: <9C6938EF-6D44-41DC-A0BF-0D131E2D1899@virtualized.org> Remco, On Aug 7, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Remco van Mook wrote: > I'm not sure how big the extra overhead will be - my estimate is not a > lot - but putting it that way, that is indeed what I'm suggesting. If the overhead is not a lot (something I suspect the request evaluation staff at RIPE-NCC might disagree with), it isn't clear to me how this would significantly impact address distribution. > Allocating all the fragments to a single request or small number of > requests is in my opinion the worst possible thing we could do with > it. But wouldn't this be the outcome with your proposal as written since the folks most likely to consume the most address space are the ones with the resources to throw at writing a zillion applications? Or are you assuming there would be a significant increase in the number of requests submitted essentially simultaneously such that distribution of the fragments would be distributed more evenly over a number of requesters? > Alternatively we could take the 'one size fits all' approach as has > been > proposed in the APNIC region as referred to by Randy. Or you could put a wait time between requests, e.g., a new request from the same organization will only be reviewed (say) 30 days after the last request. If nothing else, this could increase RIPE-NCC's membership fee revenues (1/2 :-)). Regards, -drc From randy at psg.com Thu Aug 7 22:34:19 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:34:19 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations In-Reply-To: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E656D@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6518@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> <94CBF5B8-867E-43AF-844E-8BF393BAAEA1@virtualized.org> <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E656A@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> <489B292E.6030608@psg.com> <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E656D@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: <489B5C4B.7090801@psg.com> Remco van Mook wrote: > I have read it and I understand that it's only about the last /8. I > apologise for not making a more elaborate and eloquent reference. But > considering the scenario, wouldn't you agree that I'm also talking about > the same timeframe? [ just trying to be precise here ] the apnic region has no policy or policy proposals other than the current you-get-what-you-justify for space other than the last /8 from the free pool. > AFAIK we don't have any significant number of requests for PA larger > than a /8 (fortunately) in this case, i suspect a 'significant number' would be about one. listen to alain durand (comcast) and miyakawa shin (ntt) some time and be very fearful. they are in a terrible trade-off space. they either get a lot of public /8s or break the ipv4 internet [0] for their customers. currently they are opting for the latter. > And it is a 'one size fits all' approach :-) actually, not exactly. the spnic proposal very purposfuly says the then current smallest allocation size. as things get tight, one might expect that size to change. randy --- [0] with 'carrier class nat' in the net core, you will get to write to comcast's walled garden lawyers when you want to deploy a new application that needs help from the nat. From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Thu Aug 7 23:03:56 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 23:03:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6518@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> <94CBF5B8-867E-43AF-844E-8BF393BAAEA1@virtualized.org> <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E656A@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> <9C6938EF-6D44-41DC-A0BF-0D131E2D1899@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6578@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Hi David, Thanks for helping me clarify this. I don't see a reason for a 30-day rule because I think current policy will help us here. Allow me to explain. I'm assuming that most organizations will ask for a new allocation quickly after reaching the 80% usage mark on their current space. Also, that LIR would then ask, within current policy, for a years supply. Let's say for a period of 64 weeks because I'm lazy and I like round numbers :-) Now if that LIR were to request a /15 and only get a /17, it stands to reason that they don't pass the 80% mark again for about 16 weeks. If they get a /18, 8 weeks, a /19, 4 weeks, and so on. In order for them to come back within a day we're down to /23s anyway. So, a LIR that comes back immediately is clearly up to something fishy or might not be completely truthful in filling out their templates. I'm not convinced we can't work out a way to give this a proper write-up, but currently I just want to see whether the general idea has merit according to the community. So, does it ? Best, Remco -----Original Message----- From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] Sent: donderdag 7 augustus 2008 22:31 To: Remco van Mook Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations Remco, On Aug 7, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Remco van Mook wrote: > I'm not sure how big the extra overhead will be - my estimate is not a > lot - but putting it that way, that is indeed what I'm suggesting. If the overhead is not a lot (something I suspect the request evaluation staff at RIPE-NCC might disagree with), it isn't clear to me how this would significantly impact address distribution. > Allocating all the fragments to a single request or small number of > requests is in my opinion the worst possible thing we could do with > it. But wouldn't this be the outcome with your proposal as written since the folks most likely to consume the most address space are the ones with the resources to throw at writing a zillion applications? Or are you assuming there would be a significant increase in the number of requests submitted essentially simultaneously such that distribution of the fragments would be distributed more evenly over a number of requesters? > Alternatively we could take the 'one size fits all' approach as has > been > proposed in the APNIC region as referred to by Randy. Or you could put a wait time between requests, e.g., a new request from the same organization will only be reviewed (say) 30 days after the last request. If nothing else, this could increase RIPE-NCC's membership fee revenues (1/2 :-)). Regards, -drc Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Aug 7 04:09:35 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:09:35 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6518@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> <94CBF5B8-867E-43AF-844E-8BF393BAAEA1@virtualized.org> <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E656A@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: <489A595E.CA885777@ix.netcom.com> Remco and all, I am sure glad that shoes are not sold/avaliable on the one size fits all paradign. >:) Remco van Mook wrote: > Hi David, > > I'm not sure how big the extra overhead will be - my estimate is not a > lot - but putting it that way, that is indeed what I'm suggesting. > Allocating all the fragments to a single request or small number of > requests is in my opinion the worst possible thing we could do with it. > > Alternatively we could take the 'one size fits all' approach as has been > proposed in the APNIC region as referred to by Randy. > > Best, > > Remco > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] > Sent: donderdag 7 augustus 2008 18:28 > To: Remco van Mook > Cc: matthew.ford at bt.com; shane at time-travellers.org; > address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations > > Remco, > > >>>> Could someone submit another request immediately afterwards though, > >>>> since current policies are based on need? > >>> if you again qualify for another allocation you can come back for > >>> one. If > >>> that's immediate, it's immediate. > >> What's the point? If I qualify for a /15 and I want a /15 but all the > >> RIR has available is a bunch of /18s, I'll take those /18s. > > The point is quite simple - why bother being strict in allocating > > small > > blocks when in the end you're going to hand them over to a single > > request anyway. I don't want anyone filing a request that cleans out > > the > > cupboard in one go. > > So, you're proposing the addition of increased administrative overhead > (in the form of requiring multiple applications for address space to > obtain the amount of address space originally requested) as a > mechanism to reduce the demand on the fragmented pool? > > Thanks, > -drc > > Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. > > This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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 My Phone: 214-244-4827 From shane at time-travellers.org Fri Aug 8 10:53:12 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:53:12 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations In-Reply-To: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6578@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6518@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> <94CBF5B8-867E-43AF-844E-8BF393BAAEA1@virtualized.org> <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E656A@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> <9C6938EF-6D44-41DC-A0BF-0D131E2D1899@virtualized.org> <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC4E6578@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: <20080808085312.GA13189@borg.c-l-i.net> Remco, On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 11:03:56PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote: > So, a LIR that comes back immediately is clearly up to something > fishy or might not be completely truthful in filling out their > templates . Good point! > I'm not convinced we can't work out a way to give this a proper > write-up, but currently I just want to see whether the general idea > has merit according to the community. So, does it ? I think it is relatively simple and has merit; the potential benefit is not very large, but it is almost free. The main problem is people who only see the pain it will cause them when addresses run out. But, if you need a /16 and there is only a /17, and two /18 blocks left, then you are going to be screwed in a few months when you come back and there are only a handful of /24s lying around anyway. Time to get that IPv6 plan rolled out? (More likely time to set up a monster NAT box and give your users RFC 1918 addresses.) :( -- Shane From alexlh at ripe.net Tue Aug 26 11:24:38 2008 From: alexlh at ripe.net (Alex le Heux) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:24:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] from Kazakhstan In-Reply-To: <000f01c90684$e9657540$a059a8c0@ast.nitec.kz> References: <000f01c90684$e9657540$a059a8c0@ast.nitec.kz> Message-ID: <48B3CBD6.6060008@ripe.net> Dear Dmitriy, > We have LIR-status (Asia, Kazakhstan). We have address space IPv/19 (see > Application 1, described below), DNS and AS-number (ASN-15549 ticket > NCC#200073996 for BankNet Data Network). [...] ncc-services-wg at ripe.net and address-policy-wg at ripe.net are public discussion mailing lists. If you wish to contact the RIPE NCC directly in the future, it is best to send mail to lir-help at ripe.net or ncc at ripe.net. In the mean time, we will reply to your ticket today. Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC From anamatic at ripe.net Tue Aug 26 15:14:22 2008 From: anamatic at ripe.net (Ana Matic) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:14:22 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Message-ID: <48B401AE.7050706@ripe.net> PDP Number: 2007-01 Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2007-01 has been revised based on the latest community feedback. We have published the new version (version 4) today. As a result a new Review Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html and the draft documents at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft2007-01-v4.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-421-draft2007-01-v4.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-389-draft2007-01-v4.html http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-256-draft2007-01-v4.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft2007-01-v4.html We encourage you to review this revised policy proposal and the draft documents and send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 September 2008. Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC From nominations at ripe.net Wed Aug 27 16:00:29 2008 From: nominations at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:00:29 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Reminder: NRO NC Nominations Message-ID: <48B55DFD.8040309@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, The period for nominating candidates from the RIPE NCC service region to fill one vacant seat on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number council (NC) is currently open. The term of Wilfried Woeber, who was appointed to the NRO NC by the RIPE NCC Executive Board in January 2006, ends on 31 December 2008. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will select one representative from the nominees to serve a three-year term on the NRO NCC beginning 1 January 2009. The decision of the Executive Board will be announced at the RIPE 57 Meeting, which will be held in Dubai, UAE, from 26-30 October 2008. The deadline for nominations is 22 September 2008. Any individual residing within the RIPE NCC service region is eligible for nomination, except Regional Internet Registry (RIR) staff members. Self-nominations are permitted. Please send your nominations to by 23:00 UTC on 22 September 2008. To find out more about the NRO NC and the election process, please see: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2008/ Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC Important Dates: 22 September 2008: Deadline for NRO NC nominations 10 October 2008: Deadline for all confirmed nominations to be posted on the RIPE NCC website 27 October 2008: Result of the selection announced at the RIPE 57 Meeting in Dubai, UAE