From filiz at ripe.net Mon Mar 3 17:01:52 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:01:52 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-03 New Policy Proposal (2007-06 and 2007-07 are withdrawn) Message-ID: <20080303160152.C7DDA2F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2008-03 Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space Dear Colleagues, Following the feedback received during RIPE 55, the proposers of proposals 2007-06 and 2007-07 withdrew them and jointly created a new one. This proposal is now published and available for discussion. The proposal describes the process for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space from IANA to the RIRs. When a minimum amount of available space is reached, one /8 will be allocated from IANA to each RIR, replacing the current IPv4 allocation policy. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-03.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 3 March 2008. Withdrawn proposals are archived and can still be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-07.html and http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-06.html Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From filiz at ripe.net Mon Mar 3 17:06:40 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:06:40 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-03 New Policy Proposal (2007-06 and 2007-07 are withdrawn) In-Reply-To: <20080303160152.C7DDA2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080303160152.C7DDA2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: [Apologies for the duplicates] On 3 Mar 2008, at 17:01, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2008-03 > Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space > > Dear Colleagues, > > Following the feedback received during RIPE 55, the proposers of > proposals 2007-06 and 2007-07 withdrew them and jointly created a > new one. This proposal is now published and available for > discussion. > > The proposal describes the process for the allocation of the > remaining IPv4 space from IANA to the RIRs. When a minimum amount > of available > space is reached, one /8 will be allocated from IANA to each RIR, > replacing the current IPv4 allocation policy. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-03.html > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 3 March 2008. The date above should read 31 March 2008. Apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused. Kind regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC > > Withdrawn proposals are archived and can still be found at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-07.html > and > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-06.html > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC > Policy Development Officer > From filiz at ripe.net Thu Mar 6 18:04:00 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:04:00 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Draft Documents Published (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Message-ID: <20080306170400.A27DF2F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2007-01 Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, The draft documents for the proposal described in 2007-01 have been published. Please note that this is a new version of the proposal. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. The proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and a sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR) or the RIPE NCC must be established before the End User receives Internet number resources (Autonomous System (AS) Numbers, Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 and IPv6 address space, Internet Exchange Point (IXP) and anycasting assignments) directly from the RIPE NCC. It also states that the text in the policy should mention more explicitly that PI assignments cannot be sub-assigned. 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-draft.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-421-draft.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-389-draft.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-256-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft documents and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 3 April 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From shane at time-travellers.org Thu Mar 6 20:49:39 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 20:49:39 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Draft Documents Published (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080306170400.A27DF2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080306170400.A27DF2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20080306194939.GA16192@borg.c-l-i.net> All, On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 06:04:00PM +0100, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2007-01 > Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Looks good to me. I support this proposal "as is". -- Shane p.s. I would even support a proposal to do away with direct allocation completely and require everyone who gets space become an LIR, but one step at a time. ;) From slz at baycix.de Sun Mar 9 16:09:33 2008 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:09:33 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Draft Documents Published (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080306170400.A27DF2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080306170400.A27DF2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <47D3FDAD.8090602@baycix.de> Hi, Filiz Yilmaz schrieb: > PDP Number: 2007-01 > Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC > > Dear Colleagues, > > The draft documents for the proposal described in 2007-01 have been > published. Please note that this is a new version of the proposal. > The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also > been published. > > The proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End > User and a sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR) or the RIPE NCC > must be established before the End User receives Internet number > resources (Autonomous System (AS) Numbers, Provider Independent (PI) > IPv4 and IPv6 address space, Internet Exchange Point (IXP) and > anycasting assignments) directly from the RIPE NCC. It also states > that the text in the policy should mention more explicitly that PI > assignments cannot be sub-assigned. in short: - I still support a policy regarding End-Users needing a contractual relationship with RIPE or(!) an active(!) LIR - I support the retroactive nature. - I still have mixed feelings about supporting a 'non-complete policy'. Non-complete means, we still haven't seen a proposal for an actual contract, how it might look like and numbers (money) in it. But it's probably better that we seperate the policy & contractual things, indeed. Especially if theres the RIPE _OR_ LIR choice. ==> I can support this policy, with some minor reservations. . o O(and i hope i really noticed all the smallprint that comes with that policy change, after all, it's sunday afternoon here and i might have missed a problematic point :-) -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Desgin & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ======================================================================== From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Mar 11 12:39:39 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:39:39 -0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2006-05 minimum /24 allocation Message-ID: I see that the review phase for this proposal ends in a few days. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html I would like to speak in favour of allowing end users to get a minimum of a /24 allocation when routing is an issue. For instance, a customer with an application running out of a data centre has their own AS number and wants to get PI space from RIPE. Since data centres typically hide their architecture using RFC 1918 space behind NAT and load balancers, etc., it doesn't make sense to allocate a longer prefix just because their publicly visible machines fit in less than a /24. For instance, if RIPE were to allocate a /26 (64 addresses) rather than a /24 (256 addresses), the number of addresses saved is only 192 which is such a small number that it cannot be considered significant on the larger scale. The issue of routing table slots is irrelevant since the End User intends to announce their prefix whatever its length is. I don't believe that there is any advantage to conserving such small amounts of space. Instead of dancing around the issue and forcing people into creative host accounting to justify a /24, let's just make it simple and offer that as the minimum when, and only when, the End User can show that routing is an issue. I would not be surprised to find that RIPE requires such End Users to already have an Asnum or apply for one at the same time. That seems reasonable. ------------------------------------------------------- Michael Dillon RadianzNet Capacity Forecast & Plan -- BT Design 66 Prescot St., London, E1 8HG, UK Mobile: +44 7900 823 672 Internet: michael.dillon at bt.com Phone: +44 20 7650 9493 Fax: +44 20 7650 9030 http://www.btradianz.com Use the wiki: http://collaborate.intra.bt.com/ From garry at nethinks.com Tue Mar 11 12:53:40 2008 From: garry at nethinks.com (Garry Glendown) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:53:40 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2006-05 minimum /24 allocation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47D672C4.4020900@nethinks.com> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > Instead of dancing around the issue and forcing people into creative > host accounting to justify a /24, let's just make it simple and offer > that as the minimum when, and only when, the End User can show that > routing is an issue. I would not be surprised to find that RIPE requires > such End Users to already have an Asnum or apply for one at the same > time. That seems reasonable. > AS should not really be in issue, either - we have several customers who at least want to be open for additional uplinks, or switching providers. Therefore, when going through the hassle of renumbering (and due to some programs that are licensed to a certain IP it can really be more than a hassle), they try to avoid another renumbering session in a more or less forseeable future ... Anyway, I do second the suggestion of assigning a minimum /24 PI given sufficient reasoning behind the request ... -gg From bgp2 at linuxadmin.org Tue Mar 11 13:04:12 2008 From: bgp2 at linuxadmin.org (Greg L.) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:04:12 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2006-05 minimum /24 allocation In-Reply-To: <47D672C4.4020900@nethinks.com> References: <47D672C4.4020900@nethinks.com> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20080311140145.04037be8@www.linuxadmin.org> Count me in guys. I also suggest assigned a minimum /24 PI when required, for example, by multi-homing. Greg At 14:58 2008.03.11., you wrote: >michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: >>Instead of dancing around the issue and forcing people into creative >>host accounting to justify a /24, let's just make it simple and offer >>that as the minimum when, and only when, the End User can show that >>routing is an issue. I would not be surprised to find that RIPE requires >>such End Users to already have an Asnum or apply for one at the same >>time. That seems reasonable. >> >AS should not really be in issue, either - we have several customers who >at least want to be open for additional uplinks, or switching providers. >Therefore, when going through the hassle of renumbering (and due to some >programs that are licensed to a certain IP it can really be more than a >hassle), they try to avoid another renumbering session in a more or less >forseeable future ... > >Anyway, I do second the suggestion of assigning a minimum /24 PI given >sufficient reasoning behind the request ... > >-gg > From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Mar 11 17:02:16 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:02:16 -0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Message-ID: I've been looking at policy proposal 2007-08 about transfering addresses between LIRs directly. I'm not sure what the current status of this is, but it is one of a family of similar proposals before ARIN and APNIC. In the other RIRs, people who support this type of transfer proposal seem to consider it to be the first step towards trading in IP address contracts, i.e. creating a market for buying and selling contracts which give the right to use IP addresses. I've been reading through the MiFID directives and some of the English language material covering MiFID, trying to figure out whether these IP address contracts would fall under the MiFID guidelines. Of course, EU guidelines are not the same as laws, and the laws in this area enable a regulator, who then goes on to make regulations. I have come to the conclusion that the Dutch law is the one that is most likely to currently apply, since RIPE is run out of Amsterdam and since the policy proposal calls on RIPE to register these transfers. My knowledge of the Germanic languages is not good enough to really make sense of the Dutch legislation. I wonder if someone who speaks Dutch, or who is a native speaker of German or a Scandinavian language, could have a look at the text of the Dutch law here to see if the definitions cover the sale of contracts which give the right to use IP addresses. I'm pretty sure that "effect" in Article 1(i) defines what is a "security" but since MiFID has a lot of text about which kind of organizations and activities are covered by the new rules, I suspect you would need to read more than the definition of this one term. Since many people seem to have a vision of an IP address trading market that functions similar to a securities market like Euronext, I think that we need some proper legal guidance that tells us the boundaries for RIPE policy. If we step over those boundaries, then the MiFID rules will apply to everything that we do with IPv4 address allocations. --Michael Dillon From jeroen at unfix.org Tue Mar 11 23:49:45 2008 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:49:45 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: [..] > My knowledge of the Germanic languages is not good enough to really make > sense of the Dutch legislation. I wonder if someone who speaks Dutch, or > who is a native speaker of German or a Scandinavian language, could have > a look at the text of the Dutch law here > "Vervallen m.i.v. 1 januari 2007" aka "Expired per the 1st of Januari 2007" The following one is apparently still valid though: http://www.st-ab.nl/wetten/1064_Wet_op_het_financieel_toezicht_Wft.htm There is no mention at all about virtual property or the 'owning' of numbers though. A zipcode is no property, nor is a bankaccount number etc. We have this IANA&RIR system in place and the only reason that it works is that the largest amount of ISP's who are on this thing that we call "The Internet" find that the IP numbers they are giving out are the ones they use. Anybody though can simply take whatever number they want and given that enough ISPs start talking to it, that will simply work, but they have to convince the largest amount to do that though. A number can't be a property, thus there is nothing that law can do against handling in IP addresses. Also note that that 'trading' in IP addresses and other resources already happens for a long long time, eg when company A buys company B solely for the addresses and ASN's etc etc. Nice example from ebay: http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/evidence.lasso?rokso_id=ROK2594 Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From tvest at pch.net Wed Mar 12 00:00:04 2008 From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:00:04 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources In-Reply-To: <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> References: <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 11, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > [..] >> My knowledge of the Germanic languages is not good enough to >> really make >> sense of the Dutch legislation. I wonder if someone who speaks >> Dutch, or >> who is a native speaker of German or a Scandinavian language, >> could have >> a look at the text of the Dutch law here >> > 0490_Wet_financiele_dienstverlening_Wfd.htm> > > "Vervallen m.i.v. 1 januari 2007" > > aka > > "Expired per the 1st of Januari 2007" > > The following one is apparently still valid though: > http://www.st-ab.nl/wetten/1064_Wet_op_het_financieel_toezicht_Wft.htm > > There is no mention at all about virtual property or the 'owning' > of numbers though. A zipcode is no property, nor is a bankaccount > number etc. > > We have this IANA&RIR system in place and the only reason that it > works is that the largest amount of ISP's who are on this thing > that we call "The Internet" find that the IP numbers they are > giving out are the ones they use. Anybody though can simply take > whatever number they want and given that enough ISPs start talking > to it, that will simply work, but they have to convince the largest > amount to do that though. > > A number can't be a property --> there is nothing that law can do > against handling in IP addresses. Regardless of what one thinks about the first proposition, the second does not follow. There are a number of countries in which certain uses of certain numbers is forbidden, and punishable under law. TV > Also note that that 'trading' in IP addresses and other resources > already happens for a long long time, eg when company A buys > company B solely for the addresses and ASN's etc etc. > > Nice example from ebay: > http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/evidence.lasso?rokso_id=ROK2594 > > Greets, > Jeroen > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFH1w70UHTO4sHEFsERAmHUAKCI/WRrEatEd57LIkeAOLgWg8BZ9wCfWCHy gjVrzy+Qi1fVaVr5QYHlCvM= =ty3U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 12 01:20:51 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:20:51 -0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources In-Reply-To: <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> References: <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: > "Expired per the 1st of Januari 2007" > > The following one is apparently still valid though: > http://www.st-ab.nl/wetten/1064_Wet_op_het_financieel_toezicht_Wft.htm Yes, the little details are important. > There is no mention at all about virtual property or the > 'owning' of numbers though. A zipcode is no property, nor is > a bankaccount number etc. Nobody has seriously suggested that IP addresses are property or that transfer policies would change the ownership of IP addresses. Instead, people are talking about buying and selling contracts which give the right to use a specific IP address allocation. This is a lot like a commodities contract, for instance you can buy a contract for the delivery of a ton of copper, and then sell that contract to somebody else. You never actually own a ton of copper because you are buying and selling contracts. There are many varieties of contract like this, usually called derivatives (except for insurance and re-insurance). All of these contracts are covered by the MiFID rules and are regulated by national regulators such as the FAS in the UK. So why am I saying all this? To point out that somewhere, there is a limit which we cannot cross, or else we will discover that RIPE activities will become regulated by some governmental body like the Euronext Regulator Committee. Before we go too far down this direction, we should find out what those limits are. Or disallow privately negotiated transfers entirely and require all transfers to be subject to RIPE approval based on the same technical justifications as all RIPE allocations. > Anybody > though can simply take whatever number they want and given > that enough ISPs start talking to it, that will simply work, > but they have to convince the largest amount to do that though. I would rather see people do this than create a regulated market for IP address contracts. The fact is that most regional ISPs don't need full Internet connectivity with the entire world in order to satisfy their customers. If a European ISP started to use addresses in 126/8, they probably have enough peering relationships in place to succeed. A few Japanese cable users will complain that they can't reach European sites, but in Japan most users will never notice the difference either. > Also note that that 'trading' in IP addresses and other > resources already happens for a long long time, eg when > company A buys company B solely for the addresses and ASN's etc etc. Generally there are network assets transferred at the same time and the network justifies the transfer of the addresses. > Nice example from ebay: > http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/evidence.lasso?rokso_id=ROK2594 That's not ebay, that is Spamhaus. And the page contains no reference to ebay at all. Also, it shows a USA address which means that ARIN's policy applies and they won't accept a transfer without justfication for the address allocation. Basically, the participants in RIPE are not lawyers and I believe that we need some expert advice from lawyers who are familiar with MiFID and the regulation of financial markets in Holland, where RIPE is based. --Michael Dillon From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Wed Mar 12 08:01:41 2008 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:01:41 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources In-Reply-To: References: <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20080312085124.00b13380@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 12:20 AM 12-03-08 +0000, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > "Expired per the 1st of Januari 2007" > > > > The following one is apparently still valid though: > > http://www.st-ab.nl/wetten/1064_Wet_op_het_financieel_toezicht_Wft.htm > >Yes, the little details are important. > > > There is no mention at all about virtual property or the > > 'owning' of numbers though. A zipcode is no property, nor is > > a bankaccount number etc. > >Nobody has seriously suggested that IP addresses are property or >that transfer policies would change the ownership of IP addresses. >Instead, people are talking about buying and selling contracts >which give the right to use a specific IP address allocation. >This is a lot like a commodities contract, for instance you >can buy a contract for the delivery of a ton of copper, and >then sell that contract to somebody else. You never actually >own a ton of copper because you are buying and selling contracts. >There are many varieties of contract like this, usually called >derivatives (except for insurance and re-insurance). All of >these contracts are covered by the MiFID rules and are regulated >by national regulators such as the FAS in the UK. If the wording in RIPE stated the word "lease", why wouldn't that work? A customer comes and "leases" IP space from RIPE for the duration of their contract with RIPE (membership dues, fulfillment of rules, etc.) When their membership ends, the lease is broken and the IP space returns to RIPE. I bring your attention to: http://www.ripe.net/rs/news/global-ipv6-assign-2001-12-22.html 4.1. Address space not to be considered property It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered freehold property. The global IPv6 policies in this document are based upon the understanding that address space is lease-licensed for use rather than owned. All Internet Registries are expected to manage address space operations correctly in accordance with this principle. According to this policy, IP addresses will be allocated on a lease- license basis, with such lease-licenses to be of specific limited duration of normally one year. Conditions of a lease-license have specific conditions applied at the start or renewal of the lease. Lease-licenses will typically be renewed automatically at the end of their duration when the following two conditions are met: a) The original basis of the allocation remains valid. b) Registration requirements relating to that allocation have been fulfilled at the time of renewal However, when a lease-license is renewed, the new lease-license will be evaluated under and governed by the applicable resource allocation and renewal policies in place at the time of renewal. Changes to the conditions of current lease-licences shall be subject to a definite period of notice, except in exceptional circumstances recognized by a consensus of the Internet community. As address space is not owned, and consistent with the desire to avoid excessive fragmentation of address space, it may become necessary in extreme circumstances to renumber assignments. Such renumbering will only be undertaken after extensive consultation with the Internet community. ---------------------------------------- Unfortunately, RIPE has never used the word "lease" after 2001. The word "lease" was removed when the doc became policy: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ipv6policy.html Also the entire last paragraph was removed including the critical "As address space is not owned...". I have no clue as to whether anything similar was done for IPv4. -Hank From s.steffann at computel.nl Wed Mar 12 10:38:41 2008 From: s.steffann at computel.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:38:41 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Conflict over right to use IP addresses in The Netherlands Message-ID: <2F15168E-331A-4F97-8D08-FC9EDD8D19E5@computel.nl> Hi, FYI: There is a conflict in The Netherlands about who can use certain IP addresses. When the company DIS Hosting went bankrupt, they were bought by Real Hosting. Real Hosting is now the holder of the IP blocks previously used by DIS Hosting. Now it turns out that another company, Fiberworld, is using IP space from this block... Real Hosting and Fiberworld could not come to an agreement about the ownership / transfer of those IP addresses, so Fiberworld started a lawsuit. A judge has ruled that Fiberworld must be allowed the use of the IP addresses for 30 days, so they have time to prove they have the right to use those addresses. An article about this (in Dutch): http://www.ispam.nl/archives/1703/rechtszaak-om-ip-adressen-van-dis-hosting/ - Sander From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Wed Mar 12 10:40:21 2008 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:40:21 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Conflict over right to use IP addresses in The Netherlands In-Reply-To: <2F15168E-331A-4F97-8D08-FC9EDD8D19E5@computel.nl> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20080312113934.00b1ef60@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 10:38 AM 12-03-08 +0100, Sander Steffann wrote: If the RIPE (and other RIR) documentation on IP allocation where to be clear on these type of matters, these issues would not reach court. -Hank >Hi, > >FYI: There is a conflict in The Netherlands about who can use certain >IP addresses. > >When the company DIS Hosting went bankrupt, they were bought by Real >Hosting. Real Hosting is now the holder of the IP blocks previously >used by DIS Hosting. Now it turns out that another company, >Fiberworld, is using IP space from this block... Real Hosting and >Fiberworld could not come to an agreement about the ownership / >transfer of those IP addresses, so Fiberworld started a lawsuit. A >judge has ruled that Fiberworld must be allowed the use of the IP >addresses for 30 days, so they have time to prove they have the right >to use those addresses. > >An article about this (in Dutch): >http://www.ispam.nl/archives/1703/rechtszaak-om-ip-adressen-van-dis-hosting/ > >- Sander From s.steffann at computel.nl Wed Mar 12 10:55:45 2008 From: s.steffann at computel.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:55:45 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Conflict over right to use IP addresses in The Netherlands In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20080312113934.00b1ef60@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20080312113934.00b1ef60@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <594F0C76-37EF-4EBF-9B5B-4AA28CD6B6BC@computel.nl> Hi, Op 12 mrt 2008, om 10:40 heeft Hank Nussbacher het volgende geschreven: > If the RIPE (and other RIR) documentation on IP allocation where to > be clear on these type of matters, these issues would not reach court. Unfortunately I don't know if this is ERX, PA or PI space. I think that for PA and PI space the policy is clear enough. PA space stays with the LIR, and PI can not be assigned to other organisations. The policy even states that a contract is required between the LIR and the end-user to make clear that the end-user is required to return the address space when they leave the LIR. I just hope that the judge respects the RIPE policies. Sander From nick at inex.ie Wed Mar 12 11:08:38 2008 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:08:38 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20080312085124.00b13380@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20080312085124.00b13380@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <47D7ABA6.6000902@inex.ie> Hank Nussbacher wrote: > Unfortunately, RIPE has never used the word "lease" after 2001. The > word "lease" was removed when the doc became policy: In countries whose legal system is derived from the british legal code, the word "lease" can attract the attention of the tax authorities who like to feel that all leases should be officially stamped and should therefore incur a stamp duty of several per cent of the lease cost. It's unfortunate that the word is polluted in this way - in other respects, it seems like an ideal word to use in these circumstances. Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick at inex.ie From s.steffann at computel.nl Wed Mar 12 12:04:01 2008 From: s.steffann at computel.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:04:01 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2006-05 minimum /24 allocation Message-ID: <21975EBE-5964-4F2B-A91B-52C500EFB326@computel.nl> Hi Michael, > I see that the review phase for this proposal ends in a few days. Actually it ended a year ago :) This proposal has been waiting for policy 2007-01 since then. I am glad to hear your thoughts about this proposal. We will have to wait with deciding about consensus until 2007-01 is done though. Thanks! Sander From marcoh at marcoh.net Wed Mar 12 12:10:16 2008 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:10:16 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Conflict over right to use IP addresses in The Netherlands In-Reply-To: <594F0C76-37EF-4EBF-9B5B-4AA28CD6B6BC@computel.nl> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20080312113934.00b1ef60@efes.iucc.ac.il> <594F0C76-37EF-4EBF-9B5B-4AA28CD6B6BC@computel.nl> Message-ID: On Mar 12, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi, > > Op 12 mrt 2008, om 10:40 heeft Hank Nussbacher het volgende > geschreven: > >> If the RIPE (and other RIR) documentation on IP allocation where to >> be clear on these type of matters, these issues would not reach >> court. > > Unfortunately I don't know if this is ERX, PA or PI space. I think > that for PA and PI space the policy is clear enough. PA space stays > with the LIR, and PI can not be assigned to other organisations. The > policy even states that a contract is required between the LIR and > the end-user to make clear that the end-user is required to return > the address space when they leave the LIR. > > I just hope that the judge respects the RIPE policies. Knowing some of the background, this is messy. Some observations: - the original holder is bankrupt, so it seems the standard service agremeent, article 8.x applies, which means closure. - the merger/closure procdure makes a difference between wether or not the closing registry will keep providing connectivity, seems this is not the case (otherwise it wouldn't be a problem) - 10.2 of the service agreement states that all conflicts should be resolved using the arbitration procedure Can somebody from th NCC maybe respond on this, seems to me the judge will be out of it's jurisdiction by accepting this case as at least one party (and mybe the other) signed for ripe-321. Grtx, MarcoH From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 12 17:50:08 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:50:08 -0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20080312085124.00b13380@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20080312085124.00b13380@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: > If the wording in RIPE stated the word "lease", why wouldn't > that work? A customer comes and "leases" IP space from RIPE > for the duration of their contract with RIPE (membership > dues, fulfillment of rules, etc.) When their membership > ends, the lease is broken and the IP space returns to RIPE. People are talking about direct LIR to LIR transfers where the IPv4 space does not return to RIPE. > I bring your attention to: > http://www.ripe.net/rs/news/global-ipv6-assign-2001-12-22.html > > 4.1. Address space not to be considered property The transfer policies under discussion are for IPv4 only, not IPv6. By the way, I agree that the best way to handle IPv4 transfers is for LIRs to return surplus address space to RIPE and for RIPE to allocate/assign those blocks in the normal way. The only real change needed is to add some kind of first-come first-served rule in case the demand for IPv4 is higher than the supply. --Michael Dillon From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Mar 13 00:47:41 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:47:41 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Conflict over right to use IP addresses in The Netherlands References: <2F15168E-331A-4F97-8D08-FC9EDD8D19E5@computel.nl> Message-ID: <47D86B9D.2F3CC82D@ix.netcom.com> Sander and all, I can only guess that the resolution is in whom these IP addresses were originally assinged to and if when that company was bought by Real Hosting that that sale included the IP addresses as the actual property of the seller, which is or should be unlikely. Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi, > > FYI: There is a conflict in The Netherlands about who can use certain > IP addresses. > > When the company DIS Hosting went bankrupt, they were bought by Real > Hosting. Real Hosting is now the holder of the IP blocks previously > used by DIS Hosting. Now it turns out that another company, > Fiberworld, is using IP space from this block... Real Hosting and > Fiberworld could not come to an agreement about the ownership / > transfer of those IP addresses, so Fiberworld started a lawsuit. A > judge has ruled that Fiberworld must be allowed the use of the IP > addresses for 30 days, so they have time to prove they have the right > to use those addresses. > > An article about this (in Dutch): http://www.ispam.nl/archives/1703/rechtszaak-om-ip-adressen-van-dis-hosting/ > > - Sander Regards, 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 My Phone: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Mar 13 00:48:54 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:48:54 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Conflict over right to use IPaddresses in The Netherlands References: <5.1.0.14.2.20080312113934.00b1ef60@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <47D86BE6.5464644A@ix.netcom.com> Hank and all, Very much agreed. Hank Nussbacher wrote: > At 10:38 AM 12-03-08 +0100, Sander Steffann wrote: > > If the RIPE (and other RIR) documentation on IP allocation where to be > clear on these type of matters, these issues would not reach court. > > -Hank > > >Hi, > > > >FYI: There is a conflict in The Netherlands about who can use certain > >IP addresses. > > > >When the company DIS Hosting went bankrupt, they were bought by Real > >Hosting. Real Hosting is now the holder of the IP blocks previously > >used by DIS Hosting. Now it turns out that another company, > >Fiberworld, is using IP space from this block... Real Hosting and > >Fiberworld could not come to an agreement about the ownership / > >transfer of those IP addresses, so Fiberworld started a lawsuit. A > >judge has ruled that Fiberworld must be allowed the use of the IP > >addresses for 30 days, so they have time to prove they have the right > >to use those addresses. > > > >An article about this (in Dutch): > >http://www.ispam.nl/archives/1703/rechtszaak-om-ip-adressen-van-dis-hosting/ > > > >- Sander Regards, 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 My Phone: 214-244-4827 From flor at ripe.net Thu Mar 13 12:18:01 2008 From: flor at ripe.net (Flor Paredes) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:18:01 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Conflict over right to use IP addresses in The Netherlands In-Reply-To: <47D86B9D.2F3CC82D@ix.netcom.com> References: <2F15168E-331A-4F97-8D08-FC9EDD8D19E5@computel.nl> <47D86B9D.2F3CC82D@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <47D90D69.1010607@ripe.net> Dear all, The RIPE NCC is tracking the developments regarding the conflict over right to use IP addresses in The Netherlands closely, a ticket was opened on the 11th of March for this issue. Current status of ticket is pending as we are waiting for submission of the required documentation. Registration Services is processing this ticket by, as always, applying existing RIPE community Policy, in particular Sections 5.0 of ripe-424, "Policies and Guidelines for Allocations" and ripe-301, "Mergers, Acquisitions, Takeovers and Closures of Organisations Operating an LIR". The ticket is currently being processed in co-operation with relevant parties. Registration Services will ensure that the address space involved will either remain properly registered or be reclaimed and returned to the free pool The RIPE NCC will also continue to closely monitor the legal developments in our work field. Best regards, Flor de Maria Paredes Mattos Registration Services RIPE NCC > Sander Steffann wrote: > > >> Hi, >> >> FYI: There is a conflict in The Netherlands about who can use certain >> IP addresses. >> >> When the company DIS Hosting went bankrupt, they were bought by Real >> Hosting. Real Hosting is now the holder of the IP blocks previously >> used by DIS Hosting. Now it turns out that another company, >> Fiberworld, is using IP space from this block... Real Hosting and >> Fiberworld could not come to an agreement about the ownership / >> transfer of those IP addresses, so Fiberworld started a lawsuit. A >> judge has ruled that Fiberworld must be allowed the use of the IP >> addresses for 30 days, so they have time to prove they have the right >> to use those addresses. >> >> An article about this (in Dutch): http://www.ispam.nl/archives/1703/rechtszaak-om-ip-adressen-van-dis-hosting/ >> >> - Sander >> > > Regards, > > 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 > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Mar 17 21:41:24 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:41:24 -0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 End User Relationships Message-ID: I strongly support proposal 2007-01 which states this on the web page: ----------- This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC must be established before the End User receives Internet number resources (Autonomous System (AS) Number, Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 and IPv6, Internet Exchange Point (IXP) and anycasting assignments) directly from the RIPE NCC. It also states that the text in the policy should mention more explicitly that PI assignments can not be sub-assigned. ------------ I've been personally stuck in the middle of PI applications by end users and I don't believe that we, as an LIR, add any value to the process. In some cases, I believe we just create problems because we end up passing on messages between RIPE and the End User instead of allowing the two parties to communicate directly. After all, PI means Provider Independent, and since LIRs are providers, shouldn't the End User be independent of us when they apply for their addresses? Also, I have had experience on several occasions, of helping End Users in the ARIN region apply for PI allocations there. My role was to advise, explain, educate and to review their applications before they submitted them to ARIN. Every one of these End Users were eventually successful in their application, in fact one of them got it approved the same day they applied. The reason I am telling you this is to point out, that giving End Users a direct relationship with RIPE, does not mean that the LIRs are blocked from the whole process. If the End User is a customer, we can still help them by advising, explaining, educating and reviewing the applications before they go to RIPE. --Michael Dillon From filiz at ripe.net Tue Mar 18 18:01:54 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:01:54 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) Message-ID: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2007-08 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. This proposal outlines a framework to migrate previously allocated IPv4 resources from one Local Internet Registry (LIR) to another LIR within the RIPE NCC Service Region. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft2007-08.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 15 April 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From shane at time-travellers.org Wed Mar 19 14:56:45 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:56:45 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> All, On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 06:01:54PM +0100, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2007-08 > Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources This policy mostly makes sense to me. One thing I'm not sure about is this: LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR cannot re-allocate complete or partial blocks of the same address space to another LIR within 24 months of receiving the re-allocation. Is this to prevent IP address speculation and the accompanying boom/bust cycles? (Sorry if I missed a prior discussion about this, the thread surrounding the previous version was long and meandering.) This is reasonable, but I think it might be better to simply state: Complete or partial blocks of the same address space cannot be re-allocated within 24 months of a re-allocation. Otherwise there is a difference between "bought" and "leased"(*) space (permanent and non-permanent re-allocation), since space that is re-allocated on a temporary basis can be re-allocated by the *original* LIR at any time. Not a big deal. I support the policy either with or without this change. -- Shane (*) I know the RIRs shy away from such terms for various reasons mostly to do with fear of government involvement, but I propose we choose to be brave and use the terminology that best matches intuition. From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 19 15:19:41 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:19:41 -0000 Subject: [BULK] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: > One thing I'm not sure about is this: > > LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR cannot > re-allocate complete or partial blocks of the same address space > to another LIR within 24 months of receiving the re-allocation. Interesting. Since this policy seems to be saying that it will be legitimate for LIRs to trade addresse blocks, has anyone investigated whether or not restrictions, such as those above, would be considered illegal restraint of trade? In addition, the fact that RIPE allows LIRs to trade addresses directly suggests that RIPE now considers IPv4 addresses to be property. What will be the legal impact on the clause in the IPv6 policy which says that IPv6 addresses are not property? > (*) I know the RIRs shy away from such terms for various reasons > mostly to do with fear of government involvement, but I propose we > choose to be brave and use the terminology that best matches > intuition. If RIPE begins to treat IPv4 addresses in exactly the same way they would be treated under a lease agreement, then it is possible that the courts will decide that RIPE is actually leasing the IPv4 address blocks even if RIPE avoids that language. Imagine that I offer you an educational experience in which you attend my business premises every day and perform various tasks for the business as directed by me. And further imagine that I place a certain amount of cash in a certain desk drawer every Friday with the understanding that you can use this cash in any way that you wish whether personal or otherwise. Does this mean that our arrangement is immune to the laws regarding employment, and income tax withholding, etc.? Probably not. Even if we don't call it a "job" and it is still considered to be a job under the law. I still fail to see any benefits at all, either to RIPE or to LIRs, from making it possible for LIRs to exchange address blocks first, then tell RIPE second. The current situation, where you tell RIPE first (return unused blocks, ask for more addresses) and receive addresses second, seems to work fine today and there is no reason that it will not work 5 years from now. --Michael Dillon From shane at time-travellers.org Wed Mar 19 15:47:15 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:47:15 +0100 Subject: [BULK] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <20080319144715.GA22987@borg.c-l-i.net> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 02:19:41PM -0000, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > I still fail to see any benefits at all, either to RIPE or to LIRs, > from making it possible for LIRs to exchange address blocks first, > then tell RIPE second. The current situation, where you tell RIPE > first (return unused blocks, ask for more addresses) and receive > addresses second, seems to work fine today and there is no reason > that it will not work 5 years from now. It won't work because the response you will get in 5 years will be: Thanks for the unused blocks, unfortunately we have no free blocks to give you. Can we interest you in some IPv6 space? It tastes just as good as IPv4 and is less filling! It will keep your network tubes clean and prevent bitrot! Is the procedure really "return then ask"? Or it is "ask then ask then ask?" Networks have a nasty habit of growing larger more often than smaller. -- Shane From filiz at ripe.net Wed Mar 19 15:51:55 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:51:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) Message-ID: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Dear Colleagues, The impact analysis for the proposal described in 2008-01 has been published and the proposal is moved to the Review Phase. If this proposal reaches consensus, the RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time operation to assign a /56 IPv6 PI prefix to all End Users with an IPv4 assignment registered in the RIPE Database. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-01.html We encourage you to send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 16 April 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From filiz at ripe.net Wed Mar 19 15:58:00 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:58:00 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) Message-ID: <20080319145800.A8AFF2F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2008-02 Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR Dear Colleagues, The impact analysis for the proposal described in 2008-02 has been published and the proposal is moved to the Review Phase. If this proposal reaches consensus, RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have any existing IPv6 allocation. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html We encourage you to send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 16 April 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From james_r-ripelist at jump.org.uk Wed Mar 19 16:21:55 2008 From: james_r-ripelist at jump.org.uk (James A. T. Rice) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:21:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <20080319145800.A8AFF2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080319145800.A8AFF2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: > Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR > > If this proposal reaches consensus, RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time > operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have > any existing IPv6 allocation. Yes, go for it. > One can expect to see 4,715 new more entries on the routing system. > However, all these entries would be on the minimum allocation size, so > significant fragmentation/aggregation impact can be expected. I assume the expected fragmentation aspect is due to future requests having to be made since the original assignment to the LIR was only a /32 when something larger would have been useful. Simply keeping the existing system of spacing assignments such that they can be expanded up to a /29 in future if required should avoid this problem. You could probably space assignments for larger members such that they can expand to greater than a /29 in future if needed. Regards James From james_r-ripelist at jump.org.uk Wed Mar 19 16:09:33 2008 From: james_r-ripelist at jump.org.uk (James A. T. Rice) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:09:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: > If this proposal reaches consensus, the RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time > operation to assign a /56 IPv6 PI prefix to all End Users with an IPv4 > assignment registered in the RIPE Database. > We encourage you to send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net > before 16 April 2008. I strongly oppose on a number of counts: Not every inetnum holder in the RIPE database justifies a PI IPv4 assignment, why on earth should they receive a PI IPv6 assignment? Many entities will have no use for the /56 you're planning on giving them. Many entities will have no way of announcing the /56 you're planning on giving them even if they had a use for it. Theres lots of entities with multiple inetnum objects, that don't use a single person/role object. You'll end up assigning multiple /56s to entities when they have no need for them. The routing tables can't support another 2.25 million prefixes. Now, I would suggest dishing out /48 PI IPv6 space to entities who request them, and have genuine plans to announce them (making a one off and a yearly charge for this would be nice, for the sake of conserving routing table size rather than conserving available address space at this stage). This shouldn't cause the same amount of growth in the routing tables that dishing out /24s of v4 PI space has done since /48 is enough subnets to last (hopefully forever), thus a single entity announcing PI from a single location should only ever need a /48 (whereas a /56 might be pushing it). I'd also suggest marking a block of v6 space as never to be allocated for the purposes of global routability, but for the sake of internal networking for the sake of global uniqness. Theres little point in making this a /48 rather than a /56 since aggregation isn't an issue if they're not going to be globally routable anyway. Regards James From berni at birkenwald.de Wed Mar 19 16:40:56 2008 From: berni at birkenwald.de (Bernhard Schmidt) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:40:56 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <47E13408.5030205@birkenwald.de> Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > We encourage you to send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net > before 16 April 2008. I strongly oppose this (2008-01) proposal for the reasons James A. T. Rice has given. Why would we want to forward all the messy swamp space issues we have in IPv4 to IPv6? I abstain from voting on 2008-02, I don't think it is necessary to push address space to people who don't use it. No size fits everyone, getting PAv6 is easy enough (especially since 2006-02) and allocations serve as good indicator for the growth of IPv6. Also I suspect this will create issues with the scoring system for people who suddenly have to pay for address space they didn't even want. But if the community thinks that this is a good move then go ahead. Regards, Bernhard From nigel at titley.com Wed Mar 19 19:03:58 2008 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:03:58 +0000 Subject: [BULK] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <47E1558C.9090608@titley.com> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: >> One thing I'm not sure about is this: >> >> LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR cannot >> re-allocate complete or partial blocks of the same address space >> to another LIR within 24 months of receiving the re-allocation. >> > > Interesting. Since this policy seems to be saying that it will be > legitimate for LIRs to trade addresse blocks, has anyone investigated > whether or not restrictions, such as those above, would be considered > illegal restraint of trade? > Ultimate acceptance of any policy rests with the RIPE NCC board, who would be consulting counsel on this one, I suspect. Since no one on this list is a lawyer, could we avoid uninformed legal speculation? Of course *if* there is a lawyer reading this list, feel free to give us the benefit of your opinions Nigel Nigel From pekkas at netcore.fi Thu Mar 20 08:42:16 2008 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:42:16 +0200 (EET) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <20080319145800.A8AFF2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080319145800.A8AFF2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > The impact analysis for the proposal described in 2008-02 has been > published and the proposal is moved to the Review Phase. > > If this proposal reaches consensus, RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time > operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have > any existing IPv6 allocation. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html It is not obvious how this would modify the existing IPv6 policy. As an example, I'm concerned whether these assignees would be bound by section 5.1.1b) of policy, specifically "advertise the allocation that they will receive as a single prefix if the prefix is to be used on the Internet". Apart from that procedural issue, while this could be argued to be a good move from simplification point of view (less paperwork, maybe RIPE NCC could lay off 5 hostmasters as a result :-), I don't think the current allocation criteria for /32 are prohibitive for ISPs. I'd like to hear feedback on experiences to the countrary. As a result, it's not obvious which problem this is trying to solve except granting /32's to enterprises. So I'm opposed to this policy proposal. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From pekkas at netcore.fi Thu Mar 20 08:31:45 2008 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:31:45 +0200 (EET) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, James A. T. Rice wrote: >> If this proposal reaches consensus, the RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time >> operation to assign a /56 IPv6 PI prefix to all End Users with an IPv4 >> assignment registered in the RIPE Database. > >> We encourage you to send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> before 16 April 2008. > ... > Many entities will have no way of announcing the /56 you're planning on > giving them even if they had a use for it. Well, this would build up pressure to get it announced and accepted, at least in some parts of the network. IMHO the very minimum required is assigning all of these from a single aggregated block where everything is assigned has the same prefixlength in order to ease ISPs' filtering decisions. > Theres lots of entities with multiple inetnum objects, that don't use a > single person/role object. You'll end up assigning multiple /56s to entities > when they have no need for them. > > The routing tables can't support another 2.25 million prefixes. ... > Now, I would suggest dishing out /48 PI IPv6 space to entities who request > them, and have genuine plans to announce them (making a one off and a yearly > charge for this would be nice, for the sake of conserving routing table size > rather than conserving available address space at this stage). I pretty much agree with James here, on all counts. If some version of this proposal were to go forward, I'd suggest /48's. And I would explicitly want the policy to specify that these /48's will be assigned from a single superblock where no other (other prefixlength) assignments or allocations are made. That way the ISPs have easier time to build their filters to either accept these as /48's, /56's or whatever (and no more specifics) or reject them completely. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From lutz at iks-jena.de Thu Mar 20 08:51:24 2008 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:51:24 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) References: Message-ID: * Pekka Savola wrote: > I don't think the current allocation criteria for /32 are prohibitive > for ISPs. I'd like to hear feedback on experiences to the countrary. > As a result, it's not obvious which problem this is trying to solve The current procedere is not prohibitive, but requires an extra effort and mostly LIR internal approvments from the financial and legal departments as well as interaction with the company leaders directly. Technicans who want to play with or deploy IPv6 are asked: a) is this really necessary, b) who will be responsibile, c) what's the bussiness case and d) where is the ROI timetable. 2008-2 reverses the situation for the technical department. From lutz at iks-jena.de Thu Mar 20 09:01:42 2008 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:01:42 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) References: Message-ID: * James A. T. Rice wrote: > You could probably space assignments for larger members such that they can > expand to greater than a /29 in future if needed. That was part of the proposal. From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 20 10:34:36 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:34:36 -0000 Subject: [BULK] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <47E1558C.9090608@titley.com> References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> <47E1558C.9090608@titley.com> Message-ID: > > Interesting. Since this policy seems to be saying that it will be > > legitimate for LIRs to trade addresse blocks, has anyone > investigated > > whether or not restrictions, such as those above, would be > considered > > illegal restraint of trade? > > > Ultimate acceptance of any policy rests with the RIPE NCC > board, who would be consulting counsel on this one, I > suspect. Since no one on this list is a lawyer, could we > avoid uninformed legal speculation? In order to make policy we need to know the limits within which we operate. Sometimes that means that we need to consult lawyers before we do things, rather than leaving it all to the RIPE NCC board to clean up later. Please do not make personal attacks on people that you do not know. My question was based on INFORMED legal speculation. I've done a considerable amount of research and thinking about these issues. The policy proposal that we are discussing, wants to make a fundamental change to the character of IP addresses. I think it is a good idea for the whole community, not just the board, to get some expert legal input into the decision making process. As long as IP addresses are not property, we can regulate them strictly and arbitrarily. But if the character of the addresses becomes more property-like, by allowing them to be traded, does this create more limits on what RIPE can do in its policy? As far as I can see, we need expert legal advice to find out the answers to such questions. --Michael Dillon From marcoh at marcoh.net Thu Mar 20 11:01:34 2008 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:01:34 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <47E13408.5030205@birkenwald.de> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> <47E13408.5030205@birkenwald.de> Message-ID: <82A23AF0-6966-46F4-8CF1-5B50E4453CE6@marcoh.net> On 19 mrt 2008, at 16:40, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > >> We encourage you to send your comments to address-policy- >> wg at ripe.net before 16 April 2008. > > I strongly oppose this (2008-01) proposal for the reasons James A. > T. Rice has given. Why would we want to forward all the messy swamp > space issues we have in IPv4 to IPv6? > > I abstain from voting on 2008-02, I don't think it is necessary to > push address space to people who don't use it. No size fits > everyone, getting PAv6 is easy enough (especially since 2006-02) and > allocations serve as good indicator for the growth of IPv6. Also I > suspect this will create issues with the scoring system for people > who suddenly have to pay for address space they didn't even want. > But if the community thinks that this is a good move then go ahead. Can't add much more as 'I fully agree', it seems as bad as the goold old classfull days and /8's. Groet, MarcoH From shane at time-travellers.org Thu Mar 20 11:22:56 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:22:56 +0100 Subject: [BULK] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> <47E1558C.9090608@titley.com> Message-ID: <20080320102256.GA2540@borg.c-l-i.net> Michael, On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 09:34:36AM -0000, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > The policy proposal that we are discussing, wants to make a > fundamental change to the character of IP addresses. I think it is a > good idea for the whole community, not just the board, to get some > expert legal input into the decision making process. As long as IP > addresses are not property, we can regulate them strictly and > arbitrarily. But if the character of the addresses becomes more > property-like, by allowing them to be traded, does this create more > limits on what RIPE can do in its policy? > > As far as I can see, we need expert legal advice to find out the > answers to such questions. I disagree. In fact, I can already predict what the lawyers will say: - We're not sure, because this is all new. - But be scared - very scared! - And you definitely need more lawyers. So, I suggest we should NOT worry about whether or not IP addresses are property, but rather adopt policies that allow ISPs and other LIRs to get on with the business of running the Internet. As I said before, I support the proposal. :) -- Shane From DMenzulskiy at beeline.ru Thu Mar 20 11:23:10 2008 From: DMenzulskiy at beeline.ru (Dmitriy V Menzulskiy) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:23:10 +0300 Subject: Ha: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I oppose this proposal (can not tell more, than James has told ). Best regards, Dmitry V. Menzulskiy (DM3740-RIPE) address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net ???????? 19.03.2008 18:09:33: > > If this proposal reaches consensus, the RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time > > operation to assign a /56 IPv6 PI prefix to all End Users with an IPv4 > > assignment registered in the RIPE Database. > > > We encourage you to send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net > > before 16 April 2008. > > > I strongly oppose on a number of counts: > > Not every inetnum holder in the RIPE database justifies a PI IPv4 > assignment, why on earth should they receive a PI IPv6 assignment? > > Many entities will have no use for the /56 you're planning on giving them. > > Many entities will have no way of announcing the /56 you're planning on > giving them even if they had a use for it. > > Theres lots of entities with multiple inetnum objects, that don't use a > single person/role object. You'll end up assigning multiple /56s to > entities when they have no need for them. > > The routing tables can't support another 2.25 million prefixes. > > > > > > Now, I would suggest dishing out /48 PI IPv6 space to entities who request > them, and have genuine plans to announce them (making a one off and a > yearly charge for this would be nice, for the sake of conserving routing > table size rather than conserving available address space at this stage). > > This shouldn't cause the same amount of growth in the routing tables that > dishing out /24s of v4 PI space has done since /48 is enough subnets to > last (hopefully forever), thus a single entity announcing PI from a single > location should only ever need a /48 (whereas a /56 might be pushing it). > > I'd also suggest marking a block of v6 space as never to be allocated for > the purposes of global routability, but for the sake of internal > networking for the sake of global uniqness. Theres little point in making > this a /48 rather than a /56 since aggregation isn't an issue if they're > not going to be globally routable anyway. > > Regards > James > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From DMenzulskiy at beeline.ru Thu Mar 20 11:34:45 2008 From: DMenzulskiy at beeline.ru (Dmitriy V Menzulskiy) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:34:45 +0300 Subject: Ha: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <20080319145800.A8AFF2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: I support this proposal 'cause this operation eliminates minimum one problem (for me) - IPv6 request :-))) Best regards, Dmitry Menzulskiy (DM3740-RIPE) address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net ???????? 19.03.2008 17:58:00: > PDP Number: 2008-02 > Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR > > Dear Colleagues, > > The impact analysis for the proposal described in 2008-02 has been > published and the proposal is moved to the Review Phase. > > If this proposal reaches consensus, RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time > operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have > any existing IPv6 allocation. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html > > We encourage you to send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net > before 16 April 2008. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC > Policy Development Officer > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Thu Mar 20 11:36:57 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:36:57 +0100 Subject: [BULK] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> <47E1558C.9090608@titley.com> Message-ID: <20080320103657.GL11038@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 09:34:36AM -0000, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > The policy proposal that we are discussing, wants to make a fundamental > change to the character of IP addresses. It doesn't. IP addresses are still used to number things on the Internet. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 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 jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Mar 20 13:30:05 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:30:05 -0700 Subject: [BULK] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> <47E1558C.9090608@titley.com> <20080320102256.GA2540@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <47E258CD.2D182326@ix.netcom.com> Shane and all, ROFLMAO, your probably right! >:) I never ceases to amaze me that when there is something that a lawyer doesn't understand completely, far too often their advise is to advise in the paranoid rather than just plane old caution. Maybe that's because they are worried that they may have to actually defend their client(s) or admit that they are not up to the task to do so competently and don't know how to become competent to do so. But than again IT law is relatively new, and is seemingly always changing in a fairly rapid manner.. Shane Kerr wrote: > Michael, > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 09:34:36AM -0000, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > The policy proposal that we are discussing, wants to make a > > fundamental change to the character of IP addresses. I think it is a > > good idea for the whole community, not just the board, to get some > > expert legal input into the decision making process. As long as IP > > addresses are not property, we can regulate them strictly and > > arbitrarily. But if the character of the addresses becomes more > > property-like, by allowing them to be traded, does this create more > > limits on what RIPE can do in its policy? > > > > As far as I can see, we need expert legal advice to find out the > > answers to such questions. > > I disagree. In fact, I can already predict what the lawyers will say: > > - We're not sure, because this is all new. > - But be scared - very scared! > - And you definitely need more lawyers. > > So, I suggest we should NOT worry about whether or not IP addresses > are property, but rather adopt policies that allow ISPs and other LIRs > to get on with the business of running the Internet. > > As I said before, I support the proposal. :) > > -- > Shane Regards, 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 My Phone: 214-244-4827 From marcoh at marcoh.net Thu Mar 20 11:38:42 2008 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:38:42 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <20080319145800.A8AFF2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080319145800.A8AFF2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: On 19 mrt 2008, at 15:58, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > If this proposal reaches consensus, RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time > operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have > any existing IPv6 allocation. Although I don't see much harm in the proposal from a technical perspective, I don't expect this to have much impact in de the actual deployment. And it might even be a waist of address space, because by the time IPv6 has finally made it to the edge some of those LIR's probably don't even exist anymore, maybe causing some swamp leftovers from experiments. Anybody who want's to run IPv6 can do so by requesting an assignment, it's not that hard and we might even get some documentation which if anonymized and aggregated could give some valuable insights on where IPv6 really stands. The whole idea seems more of a political statement "it's not are fault IPv4 has ran out" as it will be a solution to what we really try to solve, the fact that IPv6 isn't rolling the way we hoped it would do. I can tell from experience this isn't the lack of address space or the procedure to get it assigned and/or routed. v6 ain't rolling because there still are some gaps on the edge, it's hard to find the 40 USD dsl-modem which runs IPv6 and does it in a way it will work on multiple aggregation platforms so you as an ISP won't get vendorlocked and the customer who wants/needs another CPE can simply buy one around the corner, knowing for sure it will work. That's where the pressure needs to be and we should focus on, RFC 4241 is a nice starting point for it. If you want to market IPv6, print some brochure and make it a nice powerpoint presentation, if you want politics and show you really care, let's show the industry can act as a whole and this week all call our favorite salesrep from our favorite vendor and ask them for the stuff _you_ need to get _your_ part working. Groet, MarcoH From nigel at titley.com Thu Mar 20 11:24:43 2008 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:24:43 +0000 Subject: [BULK] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> <47E1558C.9090608@titley.com> Message-ID: <47E23B6B.4040505@titley.com> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > Please do not make personal attacks on people that you do not know. > My question was based on INFORMED legal speculation. I've done a > considerable amount of research and thinking about these issues. > My comment was not personal. It was intended to try and contain the sort of mobius discussion we have seen on the PPML list, before it started on this list too. Anybody that wishes to take expert legal advice is of course free to do so at any time. Nigel From nick at inex.ie Thu Mar 20 12:09:44 2008 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:09:44 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <20080319145800.A8AFF2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080319145800.A8AFF2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <47E245F8.5000503@inex.ie> > If this proposal reaches consensus, RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time > operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have > any existing IPv6 allocation. my experience with ipv6 first allocations is that they take 24 hours, start to finish. Or maybe less. All in all, it's a pretty painless procedure. And if the future of your business depends on provisioning ipv6 related services, the pain:gain ratio is very low indeed. I'm not sure what purpose 2008-02 really serves other than to remove a very small amount of (due) process. Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick at inex.ie From nick at inex.ie Thu Mar 20 12:19:02 2008 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:19:02 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <47E24826.9040302@inex.ie> James A. T. Rice wrote: > I strongly oppose on a number of counts: > > Not every inetnum holder in the RIPE database justifies a PI IPv4 > assignment, why on earth should they receive a PI IPv6 assignment? > > Many entities will have no use for the /56 you're planning on giving them. > > Many entities will have no way of announcing the /56 you're planning on > giving them even if they had a use for it. > > Theres lots of entities with multiple inetnum objects, that don't use a > single person/role object. You'll end up assigning multiple /56s to > entities when they have no need for them. > > The routing tables can't support another 2.25 million prefixes. Agreed on all counts - I strongly disagree with this proposal. Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick at inex.ie From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 20 12:30:44 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:30:44 -0000 Subject: [BULK] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20080320103657.GL11038@Space.Net> References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> <47E1558C.9090608@titley.com> <20080320103657.GL11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: > It doesn't. IP addresses are still used to number things on > the Internet. Right now IP address allocations/assignments are tied to a hierarchy with RIPE (or another RIR) at its root. RIPE gives blocks to LIRs who give blocks to end users. When an end user or LIR no longer needs the block, it is returned back up the hierarchy. This proposal changes that and allows address block holders to transfer them to some other organization. This makes addresses more like physical property which is passed from one person to another without any prior relationships. And I believe that it is inevitable that once this is allowed, transfers will be made without following RIPE rules. If the recipient runs into difficulty in using their new addresses and perceives RIPE to be the problem, then lawsuits will be raised against RIPE for interfering in the trading of addresses. I know that the proposal does not discuss selling addresses like property, however this RIPE proposal is just one of several which are before APNIC and ARIN. The people who have originated the ideas behind this proposal, have talked about an open IP address market for several years. So even though this proposal is only a first step, and does not fully create an open IP address trading market, I believe that it is important to consider where this may lead, before accepting the proposal. If, like me, you do not want to go all the way towards an open market for buying and selling IP addresses, then you might want to make the same decision as I have made, and oppose this proposal as unneccessary. I have no doubt that my company, and many others, will return their unused IPv4 allocations to RIPE when the IPv6 rollout makes these IPv4 addresses unneccessary. To do otherwise would pose a significant risk of legal action because it would constitute restraint of trade, i.e. punishing smaller competitors by witholding IPv4 addresses that those competitors would use. I don't believe that my company, or most of the other large European telecoms companies, would see any significant incentive in being able to charge a fee for transfering an IPv4 allocation to a 3rd party. The real incentive is to avoid the risk of regulatory and legal action by returning the unneeded resources, and competing based on the quality of our services. I believe that this incentive has a much larger financial impact than any trading system could possibly have, to the extent that I expect larger ISPs to bend over backwards to help IPv4-dependent ISPs use the inevitably small block sizes that will be available. I do NOT speak for the ETNO, however I am aware that the large European telecoms companies who form ETNO, have come to a consensus that the development of a market for IP addresses whould be discouraged. Anyone who was at RIPE 55 will have seen this presentation: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/mcfadden-etno.pd f I believe that allowing the transfer of allocation directly between LIRs is a step in development of a market for IP addresses, and for this reason we should reject the proposal entirely. Currently RIPE plays a unique and trusted role in the area of IP address management, where companies who compete vigorously in the marketplace can fairly and openly cooperate with each other, and with non-comercial users of the resource (IP addresses) on which their networks depend. We trust RIPE. There is no need to enable transfers that do not have RIPE as an intermediary. In particular, as IPv4 exhaustion begins to pinch us, it is highly likely that there will be two or more organizations that want to receive the free address block. We don't want to be making decisions on who receives the addresses that we free up. We would rather return them to RIPE and have those decisions made impartially. --Michael Dillon From gert at space.net Thu Mar 20 12:39:53 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:39:53 +0100 Subject: [BULK] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> <47E1558C.9090608@titley.com> <20080320103657.GL11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20080320113953.GQ11038@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:30:44AM -0000, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > This proposal changes that and allows address block holders to transfer > them to some other organization. This makes addresses more like physical > property which is passed from one person to another without any prior > relationships. And I believe that it is inevitable that once this is > allowed, transfers will be made without following RIPE rules. You seem to assume that this will not happen if we don't have a policy for "well-documented and well-coordinated transfers". To the contrary: IP address blocks are already traded around (if only by buying whole companies that happen to have a nice address block). The point of the proposal is to have an instrument to actually control and document (!) the transfer of IP address blocks. [..] > I have no doubt that my company, and many others, will return their > unused IPv4 allocations to RIPE when the IPv6 rollout makes these IPv4 > addresses unneccessary. I wish I could share your faith. I'm very sure that the powers that decide in your company will recognize the market value of IPv4 address blocks, as soon as the addresses run out, and find a way to make money out of them. Especially large companies are expert at moving assets to daughter companies and selling those. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 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 michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 20 13:15:22 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:15:22 -0000 Subject: [BULK] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <47E23B6B.4040505@titley.com> References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> <47E1558C.9090608@titley.com> <47E23B6B.4040505@titley.com> Message-ID: > My comment was not personal. It was intended to try and > contain the sort of mobius discussion we have seen on the > PPML list, before it started on this list too. Mobius discussions are created when people don't take the time to read and understand each other's messages. This happens more often on the ARIN list because there are more people who don't really understand what ARIN, many of them small business owners. Also, there is the whole American tendency to see things in terms of black and white, Republican and Democrat, which makes it much harder to converge a discussion towards consensus. In general, the APWG list does not suffer from these problems. > Anybody that wishes to take expert legal advice is of course > free to do so at any time. Of course. But how does the RIPE community as a whole get expert legal advice prior to the board's review of policy? In other words a proactive type of advice rather than a reactive cover-your-behind type of legal review. Perhaps if we ask for such advice on the list, then the meeting organizers might take the time to find a legal expert who can make a presentation at a future RIPE meeting. That way everybody can benefit from the information. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 20 13:18:52 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:18:52 -0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <47E24826.9040302@inex.ie> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> <47E24826.9040302@inex.ie> Message-ID: > Many entities will have no use for the /56 you're planning on giving them. In general, I agree with those who oppose this proposal. But another problem with the proposal is that it will lead many organizations to design their IPv6 network based on a /56 rather than a /48 which is more normal. Organizations really should think about how they structure their IPv6 network and only squeeze it into a /56 if they need to. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Mar 20 13:38:58 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:38:58 -0000 Subject: [BULK] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20080320113953.GQ11038@Space.Net> References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> <47E1558C.9090608@titley.com> <20080320103657.GL11038@Space.Net> <20080320113953.GQ11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: > I wish I could share your faith. I'm very sure that the > powers that decide in your company will recognize the market > value of IPv4 address blocks, as soon as the addresses run > out, and find a way to make money out of them. Especially > large companies are expert at moving assets to daughter > companies and selling those. I think the ETNO consensus shows that the large companies running IP networks in Europe do not think that way about IP addresses. In particular, the effort required (and associated cost) in order to move IP assets into daughter companies, is not really justifiable for a flash-in-the-pan market. Any market for IPv4 addresses will only exist for a short time, and high prices which would justify this type of sale will exist for an even shorter time. It is just not that expensive to transition to IPv6. Most of the cost nowadays, lies in development of a fully transparent IPv4-IPv6 Internet access service. That work is now being done openly by many companies, and when the IPv4 shortage starts to be felt, most companies will be in a position to roll out IPv6 without excessive costs. --Michael Dillon From nigel at titley.com Thu Mar 20 13:58:34 2008 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:58:34 +0000 Subject: [BULK] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> <47E1558C.9090608@titley.com> <47E23B6B.4040505@titley.com> Message-ID: <47E25F7A.7010304@titley.com> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > Of course. But how does the RIPE community as a whole get expert > legal advice prior to the board's review of policy? In other words > a proactive type of advice rather than a reactive cover-your-behind > type of legal review. > That is actually quite an interesting and far reaching question and applies to any resources requested by the RIPE community. The RIPE community has, of course, no monetary resources of its own to call on. Where such resources are required, the RIPE NCC has traditionally provided them. I think what you are asking is that either the RIPE NCC pays for legal advice to be given to the RIPE community or that some lawyer be found to give pro bono advice. Ultimately the Board decides on whether RIPE NCC resources should be allocated to the community, of course, although mostly it just passes them through on the nod and this could be no exception. However, I do share Shane's pessimism about the likely outcome of involving lawyers. > Perhaps if we ask for such advice on the list, then the meeting > organizers might take the time to find a legal expert who can > make a presentation at a future RIPE meeting. That way everybody > can benefit from the information. > We can but hope. Nigel From nigel at titley.com Thu Mar 20 14:04:00 2008 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:04:00 +0000 Subject: [BULK] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> <47E1558C.9090608@titley.com> <20080320103657.GL11038@Space.Net> <20080320113953.GQ11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: <47E260C0.8030604@titley.com> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > Any market for IPv4 addresses will only exist for a short time, and high > prices which would justify this type of sale will exist for an even > shorter time. It is just not that expensive to transition to IPv6. Most > of the cost nowadays, lies in development of a fully transparent > IPv4-IPv6 Internet access service. That work is now being done openly by > many companies, and when the IPv4 shortage starts to be felt, most > companies will be in a position to roll out IPv6 without excessive > costs. > I share your opinions on the likely length of existence for this market, which is why I see no great harm in the proposal and even less likelihood of governments and regulators getting involved. The intention is provide a short period of IPv4 fluidity to ease transition to IPv6. Nigel From jeroen at unfix.org Thu Mar 20 15:14:40 2008 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:14:40 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47E27150.6010707@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> [ Did I mention that I totally object against this proposal, well here again: I fully object against 2008-02 ] Lutz Donnerhacke wrote: > * Pekka Savola wrote: >> I don't think the current allocation criteria for /32 are prohibitive >> for ISPs. I'd like to hear feedback on experiences to the countrary. > >> As a result, it's not obvious which problem this is trying to solve > > The current procedere is not prohibitive, but requires an extra effort and > mostly LIR internal approvments from the financial and legal departments as > well as interaction with the company leaders directly. If the company is not backing it, then they are never going to really use it. Then what is the point of providing the address space to them? So that they can play with it a bit, and then neglect it and cause issues for other ISPs? Really, we have been trying to clean up a lot of mess already, don't add even more cruft. Layer 8 issues like those should not be resolved at the RIR level, it should be resolved inside the LIR that has them. I like to see a lot of organizations doing IPv6 and try and help them out wherever I can, but if Layer 8 doesn't want it, then just forget about it, you've done your job by trying, document it properly and laugh in their faces when they come "we need it yesterday" by doing your bureaucratic trick of showing them the documentation. > Technicans who want to play with or deploy IPv6 are asked: a) is this really > necessary, b) who will be responsibile, c) what's the bussiness case and d) > where is the ROI timetable. If the company is not backing it, then nobody is responsible, we can't have that. If the techies still can't describe why they need this and what the business case is, then IMNSHO they should be looking for a new job. They might also try and actually get involved in the community called "Internet Operations" (RIPE, ARIN, APNIC, NANOG etc etc etc) [Oh and yes I know how companies think about this, but if your company doesn't support it, move on, too bad, you tried, next!] Sorry, but that really is a BAD argument for even going in this direction. Currently there are already enough ISP's who have simply requested a /32, even though they have a customer base well over the 100.000 mark, which would thus mean they need much more than the /32 they get, but clearly because they are not interested at all in actually providing actual IPv6 connectivity to their customers, they didn't even look at the request form they filled in and thought "/32, that is a lot", but it is only 65.535 /48's, thus you can only serve 60k customers. Funny thing is then that people do 'complain' when some ISP gets a /20 with comments like "that is a lot", till they realize it is only a few million /48's and that the customer base of that ISP is really huge. The target for IPv6 allocations should be: 1 allocation per ISP*. If we are going to auto allocate a /32 or something else to everybody that creates a huge explosion in the allocation table, next to that, most of those prefixes don't even fit the organization, what should a multi-million customer organization do with a /32? As such it will only create a very fragmented allocation, some used, some not, many not returned, or even more fun, that they need to renumber out of it at a certain point and might want to keep it as they "can't", thus causing multiple prefixes for that ISP et voila we are back to mess we have in IPv4. Please don't let it go into that direction. Greets, Jeroen (*1) = clearly this is already 1 allocation per ISP per RIR region, seeing that several organizations have requested a /48 or a /32 at the more prominent RIRs. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Thu Mar 20 13:38:50 2008 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:38:50 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> <47E24826.9040302@inex.ie> Message-ID: <20080320123850.GA6601@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 12:18:52PM -0000, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > Many entities will have no use for the /56 you're planning on giving > them. > > In general, I agree with those who oppose this proposal. But another > problem with the proposal is that it will lead many organizations to > design their IPv6 network based on a /56 rather than a /48 which is > more normal. Organizations really should think about how they structure > their IPv6 network and only squeeze it into a /56 if they need to. > > --Michael Dillon > "normal" is a very odd way to couch this argument. why not /35 & /32, or the /56 & /64... pragmatically, a network operator would be working in the /88 to /110 space. the massive waste in delegated and unused/unusable space is almost entirely the result of protocol designers who had little or no network operational experience. IPv6 - 96 more bits, No Magic. --bill From shane at time-travellers.org Thu Mar 20 17:18:15 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:18:15 +0100 Subject: [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <20080320123850.GA6601@vacation.karoshi.com.> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> <47E24826.9040302@inex.ie> <20080320123850.GA6601@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: <20080320161815.GA6924@borg.c-l-i.net> Bill, [ Apologies for the following rant... ] On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 12:38:50PM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 12:18:52PM -0000, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > > Many entities will have no use for the /56 you're planning on > > > giving them. > > > > In general, I agree with those who oppose this proposal. But > > another problem with the proposal is that it will lead many > > organizations to design their IPv6 network based on a /56 rather > > than a /48 which is more normal. Organizations really should think > > about how they structure their IPv6 network and only squeeze it > > into a /56 if they need to. > > "normal" is a very odd way to couch this argument. > why not /35 & /32, or the /56 & /64... > > pragmatically, a network operator would be working > in the /88 to /110 space. the massive waste in > delegated and unused/unusable space is almost entirely > the result of protocol designers who had little or no > network operational experience. > > IPv6 - 96 more bits, No Magic. I was a fly on the wall in one of the early discussions where /48 was presented as a recommendation (just when I was starting with this Internet stuff, done in a small circle of interested folks). One assertion was that "allocations must be on byte boundaries" - the reason given was hardware optimization. I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe it now. But the overriding idea was that it *must* be the same size for everyone, otherwise someone might charge more for a larger block, or simply not offer the same size. So people might end up either with a smaller block than they need, or migrate from a larger to a smaller network and not want to renumber. Which means they might use NAT. So, as far as I can tell, the "one size fits all" idea is an attempt to further the IETF anti-NAT jihad, and has nothing to do with anyone's operational needs. :-( -- Shane From gert at space.net Thu Mar 20 17:28:09 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:28:09 +0100 Subject: [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <20080320161815.GA6924@borg.c-l-i.net> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> <47E24826.9040302@inex.ie> <20080320123850.GA6601@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20080320161815.GA6924@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <20080320162809.GV11038@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 05:18:15PM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote: > So, as far as I can tell, the "one size fits all" idea is an attempt > to further the IETF anti-NAT jihad, and has nothing to do with > anyone's operational needs. :-( Actually, it *does* make an operator's life easier. Just a single button "give this customer space", without long planning on the specific size that this specific end customer might need, in 3 years time. Regarding the actual size of the block, I don't really care - there are enough bits available. What good are 128 bits if we don't use them? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 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 leo.vegoda at icann.org Thu Mar 20 17:57:31 2008 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:57:31 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <20080319145800.A8AFF2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: On 19/03/2008 15:58, "Filiz Yilmaz" wrote: [...] > If this proposal reaches consensus, RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time > operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have > any existing IPv6 allocation. I have some concerns with allocating people resources they did not request and might not need or want. On the whole, I think that if there is a problem with the way the RIPE NCC's processes IPv6 allocation requests, then that should be fixed. There doesn't appear to be a problem, though. Is it really likely that someone who is not prepared to use a fairly simple web page to request an IPv6 allocation will deploy the protocol if it is dropped in their lap? If an LIR gets an IPv6 allocation this way but does not want one they should be able to effortlessly reject it. I see no advantage in giving responsibilities to people that do not want them. If an LIR gets an IPv6 allocation this way and does not want it or use it, might their annual fee rise as a result? It's important not to move someone from the 'extra small' to the 'small' billing category because they received an IPv6 allocation they did not request. Regards, Leo From patrick at vande-walle.eu Thu Mar 20 18:30:16 2008 From: patrick at vande-walle.eu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:30:16 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <47E29F28.3010609@vande-walle.eu> As others have pointed out, it makes little sense to give IPv6 address ranges to those who do not request or need them. I would support a proposal that would allow RIPE to give out IPv6 PI space to those Inetnum holders who specifically request it, no questions asked. I do not buy the argument that it should be rejected because this would fill up the routing tables. If the Cogent/Telia ongoing dispute is any indication, even the SOHO's will soon need to multihome if they want global connectivity. So, unless we want to repeat the NAT scenario we currently have in homes and small offices, PI space seems necessary and will develop further.The router industry will need to come up with faster hardware. Patrick Vande Walle From drc at virtualized.org Thu Mar 20 19:12:50 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:12:50 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <47E29F28.3010609@vande-walle.eu> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> <47E29F28.3010609@vande-walle.eu> Message-ID: <42C3E745-4939-427E-8F0A-803103AF5F6A@virtualized.org> Patrick, On Mar 20, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > I would support a proposal that would allow RIPE to give out IPv6 PI > space to those Inetnum holders who specifically request it, no > questions asked. A simple web form that allocates /48s on demand has been suggested several times in the past. > I do not buy the argument that it should be rejected because this > would fill up the routing tables. If the Cogent/Telia ongoing > dispute is any indication, even the SOHO's will soon need to > multihome if they want global connectivity. Indeed. I personally figure as people become more and more dependent on Internet connectivity (e.g., not just for communication/ entertainment, but for system monitoring and control), multi-homing will become the norm rather than the exception. > So, unless we want to repeat the NAT scenario we currently have in > homes and small offices, PI space seems necessary and will develop > further.The router industry will need to come up with faster hardware. Be careful what you wish for. The router industry would undoubtedly be happy to sell you hardware as fast as the law of physics allow. Of course, building it will be mindbogglingly expensive (particularly given the market for the high end gear is so tiny), so you'll pay a premium. Or rather, the very large ISPs (who are the only ones who'll be able to afford it) will pay a premium and pass the cost down to you, the consumer. Oh, and it'll take a bit of time (designing and spinning ASICs doesn't happen overnight), so in the meantime, some ISPs will probably need to filter out stuff to keep their routers from falling over. Since nobody is really using IPv6 right now, I suspect it'll be the first to go. Oh, and most of those small multi-homed sites most likely aren't all that interesting to the very large ISPs, so they'll probably be targeted for filtering as well. As a small multi-homed site, you'll undoubtedly have the option of finding all those ISPs that are filtering you and paying them to not filter you, but that'll be pretty annoying. So it goes. TANSTAAFL. Regards, -drc From leo.vegoda at icann.org Thu Mar 20 19:59:45 2008 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:59:45 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <47E29F28.3010609@vande-walle.eu> Message-ID: Patrick, I think you bring up a very important issue. On 20/03/2008 18:30, "Patrick Vande Walle" wrote: [...] > I would support a proposal that would allow RIPE to give out IPv6 PI > space to those Inetnum holders who specifically request it, no questions > asked. Right now, the policy for receiving an IPv4 PI assignment is that you get as many addresses as you can show that you need. So if you needed 25 addresses you'd get a /27 as that's the closest prefix length to your need. That's unlikely to get routed very far, though. The likely affect of this policy is some (but not much) pushback on people requesting PI space. They might accept a PA assignment from their ISP, saving everyone else from carrying an extra route. Alternatively, they might just lie. But the "one size fits all" approach of IPv6 doesn't provide any pushback. It is possible the demand for PI space would be very much higher if there were no difference between the size of networks assigned from the ISP's aggregate and the RIR. And then you write: > I do not buy the argument that it should be rejected because this would > fill up the routing tables. If the Cogent/Telia ongoing dispute is any > indication, even the SOHO's will soon need to multihome if they want > global connectivity. So, unless we want to repeat the NAT scenario we > currently have in homes and small offices, PI space seems necessary and > will develop further.The router industry will need to come up with > faster hardware. Adding to what David says, additional routes and the extra cost they add could raise the barrier to entry for ISPs and encourage consolidation in the marketplace. That might result in reduced consumer choice. Not fun. Leo From leo.vegoda at icann.org Thu Mar 20 20:04:19 2008 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:04:19 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 20/03/2008 17:57, "Leo Vegoda" wrote: [...] > If an LIR gets an IPv6 allocation this way and does not want it or use it, > might their annual fee rise as a result? It's important not to move someone > from the 'extra small' to the 'small' billing category because they received > an IPv6 allocation they did not request. It looks like I missed the statement about this in the analysis the RIPE NCC provided and the answer is "probably not". Leo From dkazimirow at gmail.com Fri Mar 21 06:42:22 2008 From: dkazimirow at gmail.com (Dmitriy Kazimirov) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:42:22 +0600 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <42C3E745-4939-427E-8F0A-803103AF5F6A@virtualized.org> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> <47E29F28.3010609@vande-walle.eu> <42C3E745-4939-427E-8F0A-803103AF5F6A@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <44c662a60803202242t8a1ab64qd7cf4e718440fb70@mail.gmail.com> > > > > I do not buy the argument that it should be rejected because this > > would fill up the routing tables. If the Cogent/Telia ongoing > > dispute is any indication, even the SOHO's will soon need to > > multihome if they want global connectivity. > > > Indeed. I personally figure as people become more and more dependent > on Internet connectivity (e.g., not just for communication/ > entertainment, but for system monitoring and control), multi-homing > will become the norm rather than the exception. Let's suppose I'm SOHO user. Also let's suppose I have IPv6 only in form of /48 from one of tunnel brokers(native IPv6 is not available to me). And I want to multihome via IPv6(and think I have need for it). I think this would be rather common situation in near future. How I could do it now? - Where I can get PI space? And how much it will cost? - How I could get BGP sessions established with several ISPs?Is it possible at all now?(for small SOHO user) - What I could use as router(s)?Linux machine with Quagga(I'm SOHO user after all so no specialized Cisco gear)? How I can do it in 1-2 years from now? Or I better forget this idea and just get several /48s from different sources and let machines under my control to get several addresses and hope that in case one of connections will be broken, application-level mechanisms will retry and establish connection using different addresses?(in this case, i think this will be blatant waste of /48s _and_ decreased reliability for SOHO user) -- -- Best Regards, Dmitriy Kazimirov, C++ Developer of ISS Art, Ltd., Omsk, Russia Web: http://www.issart.com E-mail: dkazimirov at issart.com Personal e-mail:dkazimirow at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rg at teamix.net Fri Mar 21 10:53:53 2008 From: rg at teamix.net (Rico Gloeckner) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:53:53 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <20080319145800.A8AFF2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080319145800.A8AFF2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20080321095353.GI12632@teamix.net> Hello, On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 03:58:00PM +0100, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2008-02 > Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR I am opposing to this PDP. I have already seen that customers of a LIR announce the LIRs /32 because the LIR isnt interested in deploying IPv6. One may describe this as a (probably illegal) transfer of resources. Fulfilling the PDP will open a whole new can of worms if there arent some other prerequisites met. MfG/regards, -- Rico Gloeckner System Engineer team(ix) GmbH Suedwestpark 35 90449 Nuernberg Amtsgericht Nuernberg, HRB 18320 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Oliver Kuegow, Richard Mueller From drixter at e-utp.net Fri Mar 21 19:45:04 2008 From: drixter at e-utp.net (Marcin Gondek) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:45:04 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [OT] IPv4 addresses in RIPE database. Message-ID: <007901c88b83$ae7e2b60$0b7a8220$@net> Hello All, Which policy, rule or document of RIPE describes that if ISP giving to customer more than one IP address then those addresses have to/should be saved into RIPE database as independent entry of inetnum? Or there is no rule, and ISP doing it because they want to make "clear view" of used IP addresses. Thanks in advance. PS: I tried to find on RIPE website. Question is about IPv4. -- Marcin Gondek / Drixter e-utp.net NIP: PL1181589645 REGON: 140584662 Tel. +48602159929 Fax. +48222012418 office at e-utp.net http://www.e-utp.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From s.steffann at computel.nl Sat Mar 22 01:21:29 2008 From: s.steffann at computel.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:21:29 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [OT] IPv4 addresses in RIPE database. References: <007901c88b83$ae7e2b60$0b7a8220$@net> Message-ID: Hello Marcin, Which policy, rule or document of RIPE describes that if ISP giving to customer more than one IP address then those addresses have to/should be saved into RIPE database as independent entry of inetnum? You can find the relevant information in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-424.html#4: "All assignments and allocations must be registered in the RIPE Database." In your case, you have to register every network and provide information who it is assigned to. Also look at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-424.html#62, which explains the difference between network infrastructure and end user networks. Is this what you were looking for? Sander Steffann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drixter at e-utp.net Sat Mar 22 08:59:02 2008 From: drixter at e-utp.net (Marcin Gondek) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:59:02 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [OT] IPv4 addresses in RIPE database. In-Reply-To: References: <007901c88b83$ae7e2b60$0b7a8220$@net> Message-ID: <006d01c88bf2$9885c830$c9915890$@net> Hello All, Yes, thank you very much.. -- Marcin Gondek / Drixter e-utp.net NIP: PL1181589645 REGON: 140584662 Tel. +48602159929 Fax. +48222012418 office at e-utp.net http://www.e-utp.net From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sander Steffann Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 1:21 AM To: Marcin Gondek; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [OT] IPv4 addresses in RIPE database. Hello Marcin, Which policy, rule or document of RIPE describes that if ISP giving to customer more than one IP address then those addresses have to/should be saved into RIPE database as independent entry of inetnum? You can find the relevant information in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-424.html#4: "All assignments and allocations must be registered in the RIPE Database." In your case, you have to register every network and provide information who it is assigned to. Also look at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-424.html#62, which explains the difference between network infrastructure and end user networks. Is this what you were looking for? Sander Steffann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drixter at e-utp.net Sat Mar 22 09:32:46 2008 From: drixter at e-utp.net (Marcin Gondek) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:32:46 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [OT] IPv4 addresses in RIPE database. In-Reply-To: <20080322074434.GA12599@fuckup.lynix.local> References: <007901c88b83$ae7e2b60$0b7a8220$@net> <20080322074434.GA12599@fuckup.lynix.local> Message-ID: <00b101c88bf7$4ecd27b0$ec677710$@net> Hello, > rule of thumb as heard in ripe-ncc's LIR workshop: > everything larger than 4 IP Adresses should be assigned in ripe-db; dsl > end users e.g. are your own infrastructre - you do not need to assign > this individually, Live example: ADSL user (a company) with assigned a 8/5 static network => /29 subnet. LIR have to/should/can add this subnet as separate inetnum in RIPE DB? -- Marcin Gondek / Drixter e-utp.net NIP: PL1181589645 REGON: 140584662 Tel. +48602159929 Fax. +48222012418 office at e-utp.net http://www.e-utp.net From md at Linux.IT Tue Mar 25 02:44:08 2008 From: md at Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 02:44:08 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <20080319145800.A8AFF2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080319145800.A8AFF2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20080325014408.GB10911@bongo.bofh.it> On Mar 19, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2008-02 > Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR I oppose this proposal on the grounds that it is already easy enough (almost automatic actually) for LIRs to receive an IPv6 allocation. I do not believe that it would remove real-world impediments to IPv6 deployment in a significant-enough number of LIRs to justify the risks associated with automatic one-size-fits-all allocations. The eventuality of a LIR to move to a more expensive billing category as the result of an unsolicited allocation should be enough in itself to consider this proposal unacceptable. -- ciao, Marco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Thu Mar 20 17:24:28 2008 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:24:28 +0000 Subject: [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <20080320161815.GA6924@borg.c-l-i.net> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> <47E24826.9040302@inex.ie> <20080320123850.GA6601@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20080320161815.GA6924@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <20080320162428.GA10386@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 05:18:15PM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote: > Bill, > > [ Apologies for the following rant... ] > > So, as far as I can tell, the "one size fits all" idea is an attempt > to further the IETF anti-NAT jihad, and has nothing to do with > anyone's operational needs. :-( snicker... :) a /56 is a tad over 1000 networks, each the size of the entire IPv4 space. Michaels claim that its going to be a tough "squeeze" to shoehorn an operational network into that small number of bits is enough to make me snort the diet coke out my nose in the morning. Humourous and a bit painful at the same time. --bill > > -- > Shane From randy at psg.com Tue Mar 25 10:10:39 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:10:39 +0900 Subject: [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <20080320162428.GA10386@vacation.karoshi.com.> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> <47E24826.9040302@inex.ie> <20080320123850.GA6601@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20080320161815.GA6924@borg.c-l-i.net> <20080320162428.GA10386@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: <47E8C18F.7060400@psg.com> > a /56 is a tad over 1000 networks, each the size of the > entire IPv4 space. this is a little fallacy we keep playing on ourselves. it is only usefully true if you think you will be deploying absolutely jigongous layer two flat networks of O(2^64) size. and we all know that's not possible. or are you suggesting that we all throw the /64 magic lan boundary back in the ietf's face at this late date? while this would not break my little black heart, i don't think it's very likely to succeed. randy From gert at space.net Tue Mar 25 10:34:17 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:34:17 +0100 Subject: [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <20080320162428.GA10386@vacation.karoshi.com.> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> <47E24826.9040302@inex.ie> <20080320123850.GA6601@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20080320161815.GA6924@borg.c-l-i.net> <20080320162428.GA10386@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: <20080325093417.GO11038@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 04:24:28PM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > a /56 is a tad over 1000 networks, each the size of the > entire IPv4 space. American math is funny. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 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 michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Mar 25 13:29:58 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:29:58 -0000 Subject: [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <47E8C18F.7060400@psg.com> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> <47E24826.9040302@inex.ie> <20080320123850.GA6601@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20080320161815.GA6924@borg.c-l-i.net> <20080320162428.GA10386@vacation.karoshi.com.> <47E8C18F.7060400@psg.com> Message-ID: > > a /56 is a tad over 1000 networks, each the size of the entire IPv4 > > space. > > this is a little fallacy we keep playing on ourselves. it is > only usefully true if you think you will be deploying > absolutely jigongous layer two flat networks of O(2^64) size. > and we all know that's not possible. > > or are you suggesting that we all throw the /64 magic lan > boundary back in the ietf's face at this late date? while > this would not break my little black heart, i don't think > it's very likely to succeed. If we accept that an IPv6 subnet prefix can be no longer than /64 then there are 8 bits between /56 and /64, that can be used to design a subnetting hierarchy. This is HALF the number of bits that is available with a standard site allocation of /48. Since these prefix sizes (/48 and /64) were agreed on in order to give subnets more bits than they could possibly need, and sites more bits than they could possibly need, I think it is reasonable to question a plan which gives organizations, possibly with multiple sites, only a single /56. This goes against the fundamental architecture of IPv6 which tries to give every network (ISP, site, subnet) enough bits to allow them to expand within their assigned prefix without needing to rearchitect whole sections of their network. Of course, there is a much better argument against this proposed allocation and that is that it is pointless to give stuff to organizations who have no need of it, when it is simple and cheap for them to get the same stuff (or better) when they do have the need. But I still think that it needs to be pointed out that the standard prefix lengths of /64 for a subnet, /48 for a site, and /32 for an ISP, provide real benefits in network architecture and design. We should never make changes to this architecture without considerable thought and understanding of the reasons why these prefix lengths were chosen. IPv6 is not the same as IPv4. --Michael Dillon From fw at deneb.enyo.de Tue Mar 25 16:34:31 2008 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:34:31 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources In-Reply-To: <47D7ABA6.6000902@inex.ie> (Nick Hilliard's message of "Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:08:38 +0000") References: <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20080312085124.00b13380@efes.iucc.ac.il> <47D7ABA6.6000902@inex.ie> Message-ID: <87abkmx1fc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * Nick Hilliard: > Hank Nussbacher wrote: >> Unfortunately, RIPE has never used the word "lease" after 2001. The >> word "lease" was removed when the doc became policy: > > In countries whose legal system is derived from the british legal > code, the word "lease" can attract the attention of the tax > authorities who like to feel that all leases should be officially > stamped and should therefore incur a stamp duty of several per cent of > the lease cost. Over here, a lease implies that it's RIPE NCC's job to make sure that the prefix is and remains in usable shape for its intended purpose (globally routeable, not blacklisted etc.). From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Tue Mar 25 10:39:51 2008 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:39:51 +0000 Subject: [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <47E8C18F.7060400@psg.com> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> <47E24826.9040302@inex.ie> <20080320123850.GA6601@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20080320161815.GA6924@borg.c-l-i.net> <20080320162428.GA10386@vacation.karoshi.com.> <47E8C18F.7060400@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080325093951.GA22648@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 06:10:39PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > a /56 is a tad over 1000 networks, each the size of the > > entire IPv4 space. > > this is a little fallacy we keep playing on ourselves. it is only > usefully true if you think you will be deploying absolutely jigongous > layer two flat networks of O(2^64) size. and we all know that's not > possible. > > or are you suggesting that we all throw the /64 magic lan boundary back > in the ietf's face at this late date? while this would not break my > little black heart, i don't think it's very likely to succeed. > > randy "we" in this case is me and the mouse in my pocket. and yes, this is tossing the /64 stricture. the house network is nicely tucked into a /112 - although we advertize a /48 covering prefix so it will get transit. --bill From drc at virtualized.org Tue Mar 25 19:41:38 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:41:38 -0700 Subject: [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <20080325093417.GO11038@Space.Net> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> <47E24826.9040302@inex.ie> <20080320123850.GA6601@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20080320161815.GA6924@borg.c-l-i.net> <20080320162428.GA10386@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20080325093417.GO11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Mar 25, 2008, at 2:34 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 04:24:28PM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com > wrote: >> a /56 is a tad over 1000 networks, each the size of the >> entire IPv4 space. > American math is funny. Networks as WMD? Regards, -drc From he at uninett.no Tue Mar 25 19:50:58 2008 From: he at uninett.no (Havard Eidnes) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:50:58 +0100 (CET) Subject: [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: References: <20080320162428.GA10386@vacation.karoshi.com.> <47E8C18F.7060400@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080325.195058.39460796.he@uninett.no> > But I still think that it needs to be pointed out that the standard > prefix lengths of /64 for a subnet, /48 for a site, and /32 for an > ISP, provide real benefits in network architecture and design. The /64 for subnet I can understand, as automatic address assignment relies on it. However, I think I personally would be more cautious in using such big words about the /48 and /32 limits. Sure, they're fine round binary numbers, but are they *really* anything more than that? Maybe it's time to play the "site" card? (Or hasn't that been played many times already?) Do you put a lower bound on what you call a "site"? Is a home network connected via DSL a "site"? What about a small business (sub-10 employees, say) which also uses DSL a "site" worthy of assignment of an entire /48? I can easily imagine ISPs having more then 64K (for the americans who might have a problem with math, that's 2^(48-32) :-) DSL users, and with the "one size fits all" address assignment policy outlined above, the ISP would blow through it's entire /32 by handing out IPv6 addresses to 65536 customers. > We should never make changes to this architecture without > considerable thought and understanding of the reasons why these > prefix lengths were chosen. Which, briefly summarized, were...? > IPv6 is not the same as IPv4. So I continue to see people say, but I've yet to see a justification for such broad sweeping statements which I can agree with justifies the statement. From my perspective it's *really* the same protocol done a second time with more bits, and the number of bits is *not* infinite. Regards, - H?vard From fw at deneb.enyo.de Tue Mar 25 20:02:38 2008 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:02:38 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources In-Reply-To: <20080325181903.GA30231@vacation.karoshi.com.> (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com's message of "Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:19:03 +0000") References: <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20080312085124.00b13380@efes.iucc.ac.il> <47D7ABA6.6000902@inex.ie> <87abkmx1fc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20080325181903.GA30231@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: <87r6dysk35.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> >> Over here, a lease implies that it's RIPE NCC's job to make sure that >> the prefix is and remains in usable shape for its intended purpose >> (globally routeable, not blacklisted etc.). > > does RIPE NCC -really- provide assurance that a prefix > it hands out is globally routable? At least for PI space, they explicitly say they don't. (Of course, this doesn't completely rule out that an implied guarantee exists nevertheless.) > ` Or is that just an implied aspect of the term "lease", > which is not in use these days? Yes, it's a mandatory part of the contract, the leaser cannot abstain from that. You've got some wiggle room with regard to the scope of the contract. But a lease of something that provides no documented value (and the contract explicitly saying so!) will be a very difficult sell to various parties. It borders on breach of trust ("Untreue", embezzlement in extreme cases). The current model of industry self-governance does not seem to suffer from that. From drc at virtualized.org Tue Mar 25 20:54:09 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:54:09 -0700 Subject: [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <20080325.195058.39460796.he@uninett.no> References: <20080320162428.GA10386@vacation.karoshi.com.> <47E8C18F.7060400@psg.com> <20080325.195058.39460796.he@uninett.no> Message-ID: <410790C7-D9D1-4EC6-B267-8226C2AEFE15@virtualized.org> Havard, On Mar 25, 2008, at 11:50 AM, Havard Eidnes wrote: > The /64 for subnet I can understand, as automatic address assignment > relies on it. However, I think I personally would be more cautious > in using such big words about the /48 and /32 limits. Sure, they're > fine round binary numbers, but are they *really* anything more than > that? They are conventions that some folks thought would help 'site' renumbering and aggregatability. > Maybe it's time to play the "site" card? No. It's an icky card. > I can easily imagine ISPs > having more then 64K (for the americans who might have a problem > with math, that's 2^(48-32) :-) DSL users, and with the "one size > fits all" address assignment policy outlined above, the ISP would > blow through it's entire /32 by handing out IPv6 addresses to 65536 > customers. Yes. Leaving 35,184,372,023,296 (2^45 - 2^16) /48s left in the format prefix assigned to global unicast. >> We should never make changes to this architecture without >> considerable thought and understanding of the reasons why these >> prefix lengths were chosen. > > Which, briefly summarized, were...? "We got bits. Lots o' bits."? I don't know the rationale myself, but I note that class Bs were once very popular... :-) >> IPv6 is not the same as IPv4. > > So I continue to see people say, but I've yet to see a justification > for such broad sweeping statements which I can agree with justifies > the statement. From my perspective it's *really* the same protocol > done a second time with more bits, I suspect it depends on where you look. From a network operations POV, most folks I think would agree that IPv6 is a backwards incompatibly tweaked IPv4 with more bits (giving you most if not all of the problems of IPv4 with little benefit of a new protocol to justify the cost of deployment). From an enterprise POV, you've got addresses coming out of every bodily orifice which is quantitatively different, albeit qualitatively since you're saddled with the same routing crap you have with IPv4, the difference isn't so useful. From an application programmer's POV, you get to touch every piece of network aware code (relinking at a minimum). The VAST TRACTS of address space _may_ provide for new network application architectures and communication techniques, although I'm not holding my breath. > and the number of bits is *not* infinite. True. There are the same number of /19s, /20s, etc. in IPv6 as there are in IPv4... (I find it odd that some people don't seem to get this). Regards, -drc From dr at cluenet.de Wed Mar 26 01:16:05 2008 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:16:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <20080319145800.A8AFF2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080319145800.A8AFF2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20080326001605.GA10691@srv01.cluenet.de> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 03:58:00PM +0100, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > We encourage you to send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net > before 16 April 2008. I do oppose this proposal. Reasons: - No real problem solved, the allocation request procedure is trivial and doesn't usually (or even often) require support from legal folks and "company leaders" as far as I'm aware. - Possible billing category upgrades - Allocation of non-insignificant resources not requested by the LIR - Possibly insufficient allocation sizes being allocated, with limited space to grow (/29) into without renumbering. LIRs should make up their mind how much space they need _before_ requesting resources - If policy implemented, less empirical insight into how many organizations actually start to care about IPv6 (step 1: allocation assigned, step 2: announcement of prefix in BGP) Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Tue Mar 25 19:19:03 2008 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:19:03 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources In-Reply-To: <87abkmx1fc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> References: <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20080312085124.00b13380@efes.iucc.ac.il> <47D7ABA6.6000902@inex.ie> <87abkmx1fc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: <20080325181903.GA30231@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 04:34:31PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Nick Hilliard: > > > Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >> Unfortunately, RIPE has never used the word "lease" after 2001. The > >> word "lease" was removed when the doc became policy: > > > > In countries whose legal system is derived from the british legal > > code, the word "lease" can attract the attention of the tax > > authorities who like to feel that all leases should be officially > > stamped and should therefore incur a stamp duty of several per cent of > > the lease cost. > > Over here, a lease implies that it's RIPE NCC's job to make sure that > the prefix is and remains in usable shape for its intended purpose > (globally routeable, not blacklisted etc.). does RIPE NCC -really- provide assurance that a prefix it hands out is globally routable? ` Or is that just an implied aspect of the term "lease", which is not in use these days? --bill From shane at time-travellers.org Wed Mar 26 10:37:21 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:37:21 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Bogus Prefixes (was Enabling Methods ...) In-Reply-To: <20080325181903.GA30231@vacation.karoshi.com.> References: <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <47D70C89.3050200@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20080312085124.00b13380@efes.iucc.ac.il> <47D7ABA6.6000902@inex.ie> <87abkmx1fc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20080325181903.GA30231@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: <20080326093721.GA8329@borg.c-l-i.net> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 06:19:03PM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > > Over here, a lease implies that it's RIPE NCC's job to make sure > > that the prefix is and remains in usable shape for its intended > > purpose (globally routeable, not blacklisted etc.). > > does RIPE NCC -really- provide assurance that a prefix > it hands out is globally routable? Quite the opposite. I think all the RIRs have a consistent stance here: "caveat emptor". (Well, not "emptor" because they claim one does not buy address space, but I think I've discussed that...) OTOH, in my experience the RIRs do *care* about their members' problems. They do help people who are getting filtered inappropriately with efforts to get filters removed. And the RIPE NCC runs the "de-bogonising" effort: http://www.ris.ripe.net/debogon/ I think this is all as it should be. On the Internet, we find that if you place the cost and the benefit at the same place, things get solved. So the LIR that gets the space must "clean up" the space (cost), but then can use it for whatever cool Internet things it wants (benefit). Having the RIRs take responsibility breaks the cost/benefit connection, so they will spend more than some LIR need, and less than others on the effort. -- Shane From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 26 11:24:45 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:24:45 -0000 Subject: [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <20080325.195058.39460796.he@uninett.no> References: <20080320162428.GA10386@vacation.karoshi.com.><47E8C18F.7060400@psg.com> <20080325.195058.39460796.he@uninett.no> Message-ID: > Maybe it's time to play the "site" card? (Or hasn't that been > played many times already?) Do you put a lower bound on what > you call a "site"? Is a home network connected via DSL a > "site"? Yes. > What about a small business (sub-10 employees, say) > which also uses DSL a "site" > worthy of assignment of an entire /48? Yes. > I can easily imagine > ISPs having more then 64K (for the americans who might have a > problem with math, that's 2^(48-32) :-) DSL users, and with > the "one size fits all" address assignment policy outlined > above, the ISP would blow through it's entire /32 by handing > out IPv6 addresses to 65536 customers. Big ISPs already ask for and receive IPv6 allocations much bigger than a /32. > > We should never make changes to this architecture without > considerable > > thought and understanding of the reasons why these prefix > lengths were > > chosen. > > Which, briefly summarized, were...? If only the IETF would produce a document that covers the whole story... My understanding is that a big part of the architecture was to allow networks to grow, at any level in the addressing hierarchy without requiring any changes to the hierarchy itself. That's why a site gets more addresses than they need and why many ISPs also get more addresses than they need. Of course, in the Americas, they have tempered this by dividing sites into homes and others. An ISP can assign /56s to home sites rather than /48, if they want to. Of course this complicates management systems and planning, so ARIN made this optional. If a site really is a home, then /56 still meets the goal of giving more subnetting ability than they could possibly need. > > IPv6 is not the same as IPv4. > > So I continue to see people say, but I've yet to see a > justification for such broad sweeping statements which I can > agree with justifies the statement. From my perspective it's > *really* the same protocol done a second time with more bits, > and the number of bits is *not* infinite. There are many ways in which IPv6 differs from IPv4, not just the addressing hierarchy. And even though the number of bits is not infinite, it is really, really big. Almost unimaginably big. We can afford to waste IPv6 addresses because even if we do run out some day, our great-grandchildren will have enough generations of network operational experience to design a proper Internet Protocol. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Mar 26 12:34:03 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:34:03 -0000 Subject: [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <410790C7-D9D1-4EC6-B267-8226C2AEFE15@virtualized.org> References: <20080320162428.GA10386@vacation.karoshi.com.> <47E8C18F.7060400@psg.com> <20080325.195058.39460796.he@uninett.no> <410790C7-D9D1-4EC6-B267-8226C2AEFE15@virtualized.org> Message-ID: > True. There are the same number of /19s, /20s, etc. in IPv6 > as there are in IPv4... (I find it odd that some people don't > seem to get this). Maybe a better way to explain it is that there are the same number of /32s in IPv6 as IPv4. But instead of assigning a /32 to a single device, in IPv6 we allocate it to a single ISP who can then make /48 allocations to 64k customer sites which can then address everything in that site including the light switches. As you can see, IPv6 makes much better use of a /32 than IPv4 does. --Michael Dillon From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Wed Mar 26 09:35:27 2008 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:35:27 +0000 Subject: [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <20080326082741.GA31907@bfib.ipng.nl> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> <47E24826.9040302@inex.ie> <20080320123850.GA6601@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20080320161815.GA6924@borg.c-l-i.net> <20080320162428.GA10386@vacation.karoshi.com.> <47E8C18F.7060400@psg.com> <20080325093951.GA22648@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20080326082741.GA31907@bfib.ipng.nl> Message-ID: <20080326083527.GA6667@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 09:27:41AM +0100, Pim van Pelt wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:39:51AM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > | "we" in this case is me and the mouse in my pocket. > | and yes, this is tossing the /64 stricture. the house > | network is nicely tucked into a /112 - although we advertize > | a /48 covering prefix so it will get transit. > good for you, bill. you get to do things different just because you can AND the > world gets to see you adhere to what we collectively regard as good practice. > > I don't think I have your /48 in my routing tables. Sorry it didn't work out. got a target v6 address for me to reach? --bill From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Wed Mar 26 09:43:49 2008 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:43:49 +0000 Subject: [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <20080326082741.GA31907@bfib.ipng.nl> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> <47E24826.9040302@inex.ie> <20080320123850.GA6601@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20080320161815.GA6924@borg.c-l-i.net> <20080320162428.GA10386@vacation.karoshi.com.> <47E8C18F.7060400@psg.com> <20080325093951.GA22648@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20080326082741.GA31907@bfib.ipng.nl> Message-ID: <20080326084349.GB6667@vacation.karoshi.com.> > | "we" in this case is me and the mouse in my pocket. > | and yes, this is tossing the /64 stricture. the house > | network is nicely tucked into a /112 - although we advertize > | a /48 covering prefix so it will get transit. > good for you, bill. you get to do things different just because you can AND the > world gets to see you adhere to what we collectively regard as good practice. > > I don't think I have your /48 in my routing tables. Sorry it didn't work out. > ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- > Pim van Pelt Email: pim at ipng.nl and good for you. although I expect your use of the term "we", might be different than my own. the picture you paint, bill v. the world - is only slightly off kilter. sorry that you chose to filter, but that is every ISP's perogative ... or more strongly, every ISP has an obligation to establish which prefixes they will and will not accept. leaning on a third party (IETF, RIR) to set those policies for you might be an abbrogation of responsibility. --bill From pim at ipng.nl Wed Mar 26 09:27:41 2008 From: pim at ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:27:41 +0100 Subject: [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <20080325093951.GA22648@vacation.karoshi.com.> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> <47E24826.9040302@inex.ie> <20080320123850.GA6601@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20080320161815.GA6924@borg.c-l-i.net> <20080320162428.GA10386@vacation.karoshi.com.> <47E8C18F.7060400@psg.com> <20080325093951.GA22648@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: <20080326082741.GA31907@bfib.ipng.nl> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:39:51AM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: | "we" in this case is me and the mouse in my pocket. | and yes, this is tossing the /64 stricture. the house | network is nicely tucked into a /112 - although we advertize | a /48 covering prefix so it will get transit. good for you, bill. you get to do things different just because you can AND the world gets to see you adhere to what we collectively regard as good practice. I don't think I have your /48 in my routing tables. Sorry it didn't work out. -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim at ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From andy at nosignal.org Fri Mar 28 09:38:13 2008 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:38:13 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080319145155.400902F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <994F88DF-9587-4BD1-9A6B-5AF03A3C872A@nosignal.org> On 19 Mar 2008, at 14:51, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2008-01 > Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Forgive me if I have missed consensus (or perhaps an epiphany), but doesn't this suggestion rely on the arguments from PDP number 2006-01 being solved ? I oppose the proposal as it stands, but I support any efforts to encourage v6 adoption, and also recognise that this means fair and available v6 PI policy must be adopted. I would prefer to see global consensus that any organisation with a requirement for address resources can request, and have ONE block of PI. My rationale is that it should be extremely clear that originating one prefix at the end-site edge is both intended, and desirable. The RIRs should have permission to sanction additional blocks where seen as operationally imperative. Organisations should also have to justify a technical requirement for PI rather than PA, and additionally, should interface with the RIPE NCC via an LIR. This does not stop organisations registering additional, 'shill' organisations for the purposes of requesting more PI, but if someone is that desperate to design flaws into their network, there is little that can be described in a policy development environment that will help them. Best wishes Andy Davidson From gert at space.net Fri Mar 28 13:32:47 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:32:47 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [apwg-chairs] Questions on IPv6 In-Reply-To: <190322028.20080328163321@telecom.kz> References: <190322028.20080328163321@telecom.kz> Message-ID: <20080328123247.GJ11038@Space.Net> Hi Natalya, (please do not CC: lots of different folks at the same time - just address-policy-wg at ripe.net *or* hostmaster at ripe.net is sufficient, depending on whether you want an answer from the community or from the RIPE NCC) On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 04:33:21PM +0600, Natalya Petrova wrote: > Dear colleagues, > I need your help on a question of upgrade IP- addresses from version IPv4 on version IPv6: > 1) Have I understood corretly, that really start of upgrade is 04.02.2008? Upgrading to IPv6 has started 10 years ago. There is nothing special (that I know of) that happend on 04.02.2008. > 2)Till what date/year is it planned to upgrade completely existing addresses with IPv4 on IPv6? This is a question nobody can answer today. We know that the IPv4 addresses will run out, some time in 2010 or 2011 - but nobody knows how long it will take to completely migrate to IPv6 (or if it will happen at all). > 3) What completion date IP of IPv4 addresses? What parallel term IPv4 > and IPv6? Current estimations say "some time in 2011, there will no longer be IPv4 addresses available from the regional registries (RIPE etc.)". IPv6 is available today, so you can immediately start using IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel. > 4)There will be automatic a updating in base RIPE (ripe.net) structures existing IPv4 addresses on IPv6? > Or it will be necessary to make a re-registration manually in base RIPE? IPv4 and IPv6 are independent. So you need to ask hostmaster at ripe.net for an IPv6 allocation, and use (+document) that in parallel to your IPv4 allocation. > 5)In case of our readiness for transition on IPv6 - what documents is > it necessary to give to experts RIPE (in what form it is necessary to > notify you and on what e-mail?) Basically, all you need to do is "tell RIPE that you want IPv6 for you, and for your customers". The address is hostmaster at ripe.net, and the document is ripe-425. See also: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-422.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-425.html > 6)Is it possible to make gradually updating IP of addresses with IPv4 on IPv6, for example > part IP of Kazaktelecom addresses will be upgraded in 2009, > and part IP of Kazaktelecom addresses in 2010, etc.? Yes. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 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 michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Mar 28 14:07:28 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:07:28 -0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [apwg-chairs] Questions on IPv6 In-Reply-To: <20080328123247.GJ11038@Space.Net> References: <190322028.20080328163321@telecom.kz> <20080328123247.GJ11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: > There is nothing special (that I know of) that happend on 04.02.2008. I believe that was the date that ICANN announced that IPv6 addresses would be added to the root zone of the DNS. --Michael Dillon From natalya.petrova at telecom.kz Fri Mar 28 11:33:21 2008 From: natalya.petrova at telecom.kz (Natalya Petrova) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:33:21 +0600 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Questions on IPv6 Message-ID: <190322028.20080328163321@telecom.kz> Dear colleagues, I need your help on a question of upgrade IP- addresses from version IPv4 on version IPv6: 1) Have I understood corretly, that really start of upgrade is 04.02.2008? 2)Till what date/year is it planned to upgrade completely existing addresses with IPv4 on IPv6? 3) What completion date IP of IPv4 addresses? What parallel term IPv4 and IPv6? 4)There will be automatic a updating in base RIPE (ripe.net) structures existing IPv4 addresses on IPv6? Or it will be necessary to make a re-registration manually in base RIPE? 5)In case of our readiness for transition on IPv6 - what documents is it necessary to give to experts RIPE (in what form it is necessary to notify you and on what e-mail?) 6)Is it possible to make gradually updating IP of addresses with IPv4 on IPv6, for example part IP of Kazaktelecom addresses will be upgraded in 2009, and part IP of Kazaktelecom addresses in 2010, etc.? I ask your assistance in the explanatory. Thanks for cooperation and for the help. Best regards, Natalya From IPCustomer.Service at tatacommunications.com Fri Mar 28 18:09:40 2008 From: IPCustomer.Service at tatacommunications.com (IP Customer Service) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:39:40 +0530 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Questions on IPv6 In-Reply-To: <190322028.20080328163321@telecom.kz> Message-ID: <20BF153147CE54408BA16E95CCE925E690D1BB@ind-msg.vsnl.co.in> Greetings, Please be advised of getting in touch with your Tata Communications Account Manager for the clarification of the same. Warm Regards, Priya Singh Executive Network & Services Operations Voice Services - Customer.Service at tatacommunications.com Mobile Services - Mobilecustomer.service at tatacommunications.com Data Services - IPcustomer.service at tatacommunications.com 1-514-868-7875 Direct | 1-514-868-8996 Fax -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Natalya Petrova Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:33 AM To: hostmaster at ripe.net; contact at ripe.net Cc: apwg-chairs at ripe.net; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Questions on IPv6 Dear colleagues, I need your help on a question of upgrade IP- addresses from version IPv4 on version IPv6: 1) Have I understood corretly, that really start of upgrade is 04.02.2008? 2)Till what date/year is it planned to upgrade completely existing addresses with IPv4 on IPv6? 3) What completion date IP of IPv4 addresses? What parallel term IPv4 and IPv6? 4)There will be automatic a updating in base RIPE (ripe.net) structures existing IPv4 addresses on IPv6? Or it will be necessary to make a re-registration manually in base RIPE? 5)In case of our readiness for transition on IPv6 - what documents is it necessary to give to experts RIPE (in what form it is necessary to notify you and on what e-mail?) 6)Is it possible to make gradually updating IP of addresses with IPv4 on IPv6, for example part IP of Kazaktelecom addresses will be upgraded in 2009, and part IP of Kazaktelecom addresses in 2010, etc.? I ask your assistance in the explanatory. Thanks for cooperation and for the help. Best regards, Natalya