From kelaidi at ote.gr Mon May 4 08:27:29 2009 From: kelaidi at ote.gr (Kelaidi Christina) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 09:27:29 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Principles for the use of the last IPv4 /8 address space in the RIPE NCC Region Message-ID: Dear colleagues ETNO has prepared an Expert Contribution on the Principles for the use of the last IPv4 /8 address space in the RIPE NCC region, based on a previous contribution with regard to IPv4 address exhaustion presented in the RIPE address-policy-wg mailing list in May 2008. According to ETNO any policy proposal relevant to the use of the last IPv4 /8 address space should satisfy the principles contained in this contribution in order to permit both a fair and equitable use of the last IPv4 /8 address space and a flexible approach with regard to its management. Introduction ETNO recognises that with the theoretical date of exhaustion of IPv4 public addresses fast approaching, principles ensuring fair and equitable use of the last /8 address space in the RIPE NCC region are required. This contribution presents a number of such principles in order to initiate such discussions that are intended to lead to a RIPE NCC policy. ETNO in a previous contribution with regard to IPv4 address exhaustion identified a number of principles associated with the management of IPv4 public addresses as exhaust approached. These principles form the basis of the principles below as applied to the last /8 address space. In the development of this Expert Contribution, regarding the use of the last IPv4/8, ETNO wants to guarantee that any policy developed is based upon the fair and equitable allocation of address space to all LIR's, irrespective of whether they are new or existing. Principles Demonstrated Need Allocation Allocation of IPv4 addresses from the last IPv4 /8 should be treated the same way for all Registries (LIR), and should be in response to their demonstrated need. Pre-determined Use Assignment from the last IPv4 /8 should only be used to facilitate the deployment of IPv6 Public address resource by the LIR. Size of Address Allocation The size of any allocation from the last IPv4 /8 should be based upon flexibility, recognising that it is an allocation from the last /8, and meeting the needs of the applicant. As a consequence the size of address allocated may require adaptation of the current and existing allocation rules. Predictability of Allocation Relevant policies associated with the allocation from the last IPv4 /8 should be announced well in advance in order to give sufficient time for operators and ISPs through their LIRs to be prepared. Conclusion ETNO supports the development of a RIPE policy detailing how the last IPv4 /8 will be deployed in order to ensure clarity for all stakeholders. ETNO believes that the above principles should be the basis of any RIPE policy related to the last IPv4 /8 and supported by the implementation of appropriate measures and actions. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues (NANI) WG Chairperson ETNO (European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association) is representing 40 major companies from 34 European countries, providing electronic communications networks over fixed, mobile or personal communications systems. ETNO's primary purpose is to establish a constructive dialogue between its member companies and actors involved in the development of the European Information Society to the benefit of users. More information on ETNO can be found at: www.etno.be. From sander at steffann.nl Mon May 4 12:22:28 2009 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 12:22:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Principles for the use of the last IPv4 /8 address space in the RIPE NCC Region In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2B17095D-F336-43F6-BF91-C8330A6EA2F7@steffann.nl> Hello Christina, > ETNO has prepared an Expert Contribution on the Principles for the use > of the last IPv4 /8 address space in the RIPE NCC region, based on a > previous contribution with regard to IPv4 address exhaustion presented > in the RIPE address-policy-wg mailing list in May 2008. According to > ETNO any policy proposal relevant to the use of the last IPv4 /8 > address > space should satisfy the principles contained in this contribution in > order to permit both a fair and equitable use of the last IPv4 /8 > address space and a flexible approach with regard to its management. Thank you for your input. We currently have two policy proposals for the last /8: 2008-06: Use of Final /8 2009-04: IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment I think the best way forward would be for you to participate in the discussions related to these policy proposals on this mailing list. Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair From kelaidi at ote.gr Tue May 5 08:26:22 2009 From: kelaidi at ote.gr (Kelaidi Christina) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 09:26:22 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Principles for the use of the last IPv4 /8 address space in the RIPE NCC Region Message-ID: Dear Sander Thank you for the e-mail. ETNO is aware of the policy proposals currently discussed in the RIPE community regarding the last /8. From the existing proposals it is clear that only 2009-04 is compliant to these principles. Christina Kelaidi -----Original Message----- From: Sander Steffann [mailto:sander at steffann.nl] Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 1:22 PM To: Kelaidi Christina Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Principles for the use of the last IPv4 /8 address space in the RIPE NCC Region Hello Christina, > ETNO has prepared an Expert Contribution on the Principles for the use > of the last IPv4 /8 address space in the RIPE NCC region, based on a > previous contribution with regard to IPv4 address exhaustion presented > in the RIPE address-policy-wg mailing list in May 2008. According to > ETNO any policy proposal relevant to the use of the last IPv4 /8 > address space should satisfy the principles contained in this > contribution in order to permit both a fair and equitable use of the > last IPv4 /8 address space and a flexible approach with regard to its > management. Thank you for your input. We currently have two policy proposals for the last /8: 2008-06: Use of Final /8 2009-04: IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment I think the best way forward would be for you to participate in the discussions related to these policy proposals on this mailing list. Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair ********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. ******************************** ********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. ******************************** From ncc at ripe.net Wed May 6 11:22:53 2009 From: ncc at ripe.net (Scott Donald) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 11:22:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE NCC Now Accepting Requests for IPv6 PI Assignments Message-ID: <4A0156ED.8090805@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate emails.] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that the RIPE NCC now accept requests for IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) assignments. This follows the accepted policy proposal 2006-01 "Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations". The request form and supporting notes are available from the RIPE Document Store at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6.html Requests can also be made via the LIR Portal, which is available at: https://lirportal.ripe.net/ IPv6 PI assignments will come from reserved block 2001:678::/29. You may want to update your filters. Regards, Scott Donald Registration Services RIPE NCC From alexlh at ripe.net Thu May 7 14:15:03 2009 From: alexlh at ripe.net (Alex Le Heux) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 14:15:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 PI assignment statistics Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, During the Address Policy Working Group session at RIPE58, statistics were requested about the number and size of IPv4 PI prefixes that the RIPE NCC has assigned over the last few years. NOTE: The numbers for 2009 contain data up to May 2009. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 /16 0 1 0 0 1 /17 0 1 1 0 0 /18 1 2 3 10 1 /19 3 7 4 12 7 /20 25 28 23 44 14 /21 51 56 89 100 26 /22 260 261 261 402 111 /23 385 464 778 571 159 /24 726 897 973 1046 292 /25 10 22 8 8 5 /26 7 6 8 5 0 /27 5 8 7 7 2 /28 0 8 0 1 0 /29 2 1 0 8 0 Total 1475 1762 2155 2214 618 Please let us know if you require any further information. Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC From ingrid at ripe.net Tue May 12 10:48:10 2009 From: ingrid at ripe.net (Ingrid Wijte) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 10:48:10 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-05 Last Call for Comments (Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM) Message-ID: <20090512084810.E53882F592@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2008-05 Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2008-05 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-05.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 June 2009. Regards, Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From filiz at ripe.net Wed May 20 13:47:55 2009 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 13:47:55 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New RIPE Document: ripe-470 Message-ID: <4A13EDEB.7010108@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The RIPE Document, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", has been updated. You can find the new document, ripe-470, at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-470.html This document obsoletes ripe-428. The update was limited to textual improvements to the document. There are no changes to the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). The document also contains an updated policy proposal template and a new PDP timeline graphic. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC From mueller at syr.edu Fri May 22 00:25:19 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 18:25:19 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Historical questions about ip address policy Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A68@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> If anyone knows the answer to these questions they will help in a policy study I am doing 1. When (i.e., what year) did RIPE-NCC first require RSAs or contracts as a condition of registering an address allocation or assignment? 2. When (i.e., what year) did RIPE-NCC first charge fees for services or addresses? 3. When (i.e., what year) did RIRs generally or RIPE-NCC specifically begin to use the 80% HD Ratio as a criterion for eligibility to receive more addresses? If this is considered too off-topic for this list please answer privately. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org From shane at time-travellers.org Fri May 22 11:51:47 2009 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 11:51:47 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Historical questions about ip address policy In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A68@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A68@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1242985907.4341.1134.camel@shane-asus-laptop> Milton, On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 18:25 -0400, Milton L Mueller wrote: > If anyone knows the answer to these questions they will help in a policy study I am doing > > 1. When (i.e., what year) did RIPE-NCC first require RSAs or contracts as a condition of registering an address allocation or assignment? > > 2. When (i.e., what year) did RIPE-NCC first charge fees for services or addresses? > > 3. When (i.e., what year) did RIRs generally or RIPE-NCC specifically begin to use the 80% HD Ratio as a criterion for eligibility to receive more addresses? > > If this is considered too off-topic for this list please answer privately. I don't know the answers to any of these questions, but I do know how I would find the answers. The hard way to do find the answers would be to look in the RIPE document archive: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ The easy way would be a send a mail to the RIPE NCC: http://www.ripe.net/info/ncc/email-contact.html Some poor staff member will likely have to munge through the documents too, but at least they will have a good idea where to start looking. Good luck! (Hopefully you're not working for the dark side...) ;) -- Shane From tom.farrar at it-ps.com Fri May 22 12:00:04 2009 From: tom.farrar at it-ps.com (Tom Farrar) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 11:00:04 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Historical questions about ip address policy In-Reply-To: <1242985907.4341.1134.camel@shane-asus-laptop> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A68@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <1242985907.4341.1134.camel@shane-asus-laptop> Message-ID: Hi Milton, I've already replied in private, but because Shane has set a precedent I'll reply to the list too ;) >Hi Milton Mueller, > >This might interest you: http://www.ripn.net:8082/nic/ripe-docs/ripe-132.txt > >Minutes from a meeting on 25-Oct-1995 discussing moving to a charging system instead of using funding. That might answer your second question. > >Thanks, > >Tom -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Shane Kerr Sent: 22 May 2009 10:52 To: Milton L Mueller Cc: 'address-policy-wg at ripe.net' Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Historical questions about ip address policy Milton, On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 18:25 -0400, Milton L Mueller wrote: > If anyone knows the answer to these questions they will help in a policy study I am doing > > 1. When (i.e., what year) did RIPE-NCC first require RSAs or contracts as a condition of registering an address allocation or assignment? > > 2. When (i.e., what year) did RIPE-NCC first charge fees for services or addresses? > > 3. When (i.e., what year) did RIRs generally or RIPE-NCC specifically begin to use the 80% HD Ratio as a criterion for eligibility to receive more addresses? > > If this is considered too off-topic for this list please answer privately. I don't know the answers to any of these questions, but I do know how I would find the answers. The hard way to do find the answers would be to look in the RIPE document archive: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ The easy way would be a send a mail to the RIPE NCC: http://www.ripe.net/info/ncc/email-contact.html Some poor staff member will likely have to munge through the documents too, but at least they will have a good idea where to start looking. Good luck! (Hopefully you're not working for the dark side...) ;) -- Shane From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Fri May 22 16:48:09 2009 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 17:48:09 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [address-policy-wg] Historical questions about ip address policy In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A68@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A68@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 21 May 2009, Milton L Mueller wrote: > If anyone knows the answer to these questions they will help in a policy study I am doing > > 2. When (i.e., what year) did RIPE-NCC first charge fees for services or addresses? I remember when RIPE started charging since il.iucc was one of the first 5 to pay the fee to boot-start RIPE. I'll check my archives on Sunday. -Hank From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Sun May 24 07:22:25 2009 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 08:22:25 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Historical questions about ip address policy In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D776162A68@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad. syr.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20090524082009.00b2a268@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 06:25 PM 21-05-09 -0400, Milton L Mueller wrote: >2. When (i.e., what year) did RIPE-NCC first charge fees for services or >addresses? http://ftp.eenet.ee/doc/ripe/ripe-087.pdf From page 4: "Funding for the first year of operation of the NCC has been provided by EARN, the full national members of RARE, Israel and EUnet. These organisations have agreed to guarantee funding of NCC operation during the remaining three quarters of 1993." -Hank From ingrid at ripe.net Tue May 26 11:49:29 2009 From: ingrid at ripe.net (Ingrid Wijte) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 11:49:29 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs) Message-ID: <20090526094929.8696E2F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2009-05 Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs Dear Colleagues The proposal 2009-05, "Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs" has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-05.html The proposer, together with the Working Group Chairs, decided to withdraw this proposal due to insufficient support for it as it is written. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From ingrid at ripe.net Tue May 26 16:13:14 2009 From: ingrid at ripe.net (Ingrid Wijte) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:13:14 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-02 Moved to Review Phase (Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC) Message-ID: <20090526141314.784E42F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2009-02 Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues The draft document for the proposal described in 2009-02 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. This proposal sets out how the RIPE NCC can allocate/assign resources to itself. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-02.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2009-02-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 June 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From filiz at ripe.net Tue May 26 16:30:34 2009 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:30:34 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) Message-ID: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2009-06 Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 23 June 2009. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC From dr at cluenet.de Wed May 27 11:05:46 2009 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:05:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20090527090546.GA10750@srv03.cluenet.de> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 04:30:34PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2009-06 > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html I fully support this proposal. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From david.freedman at uk.clara.net Wed May 27 11:09:38 2009 From: david.freedman at uk.clara.net (David Freedman) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 10:09:38 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> <20090527090546.GA10750@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <7B8B0D6F623C3A40A0D0A80A66756E2B010605@EXVS01.claranet.local> agree ------------------------------------------------ David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Limited http://www.clara.net -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net on behalf of Daniel Roesen Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 10:05 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 04:30:34PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2009-06 > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html I fully support this proposal. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fweimer at bfk.de Wed May 27 11:15:44 2009 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:15:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> (Filiz Yilmaz's message of "Tue\, 26 May 2009 16\:30\:34 +0200") References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <82d49ugb3z.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Filiz Yilmaz: > PDP Number: 2009-06 > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy I think this makes sense, and I support the proposal. -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From jeroen at unfix.org Wed May 27 11:17:50 2009 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:17:50 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <20090527090546.GA10750@srv03.cluenet.de> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> <20090527090546.GA10750@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <4A1D053E.5010304@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 04:30:34PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: >> PDP Number: 2009-06 >> Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html I partially agree, but with comments. True, it does not relate directly to address allocation, but it does relate to the number of routing entries that will appear in the routing tables. More importantly why are we calling those prefixes then "Provider Aggregated"? If they are not aggregated anymore by the above change? Simple example: if 1000 ISPs will take their /32 and announce their 65536 more specifics out of that then we will have 655.360.000 routes. That is something that a lot of hardware vendors and of course the large networks will love to see. The ones who will hurt by this will be the small ISPs who will want to de-aggregate, not the big fishes who are able to do whatever they want anyway and buy bigger boxes to handle larger routing tables. Filtering happens anyway, so a /32 will most likely be the minimum space in the PA range that one can announce anyway, which does mean that an ISP with a /20 could split it up into /32's. Thus, indeed having the text about what to announce and not to announce in the Allocation Policy is not required, especially as it is covered in other documents, but having maybe at least a pointer to those documents might be a good idea. To twist this in another way: could there be added a requirement that prefixes are properly registered in RPSL? That would help ISPs decide which prefixes should be there and how to filter, with maybe having exclusions. 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 ondrej.sury at nic.cz Wed May 27 11:18:38 2009 From: ondrej.sury at nic.cz (=?UTF-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdXLDvQ==?=) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:18:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > ? ?http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 23 June 2009. I fully support this proposal. Ondrej -- Ondrej Sury technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury at nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury at nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 ----------------------------------------- From dr at cluenet.de Wed May 27 11:22:34 2009 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:22:34 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <4A1D053E.5010304@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> <20090527090546.GA10750@srv03.cluenet.de> <4A1D053E.5010304@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20090527092234.GA14292@srv03.cluenet.de> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:17:50AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > More importantly why are we calling those prefixes then "Provider > Aggregated"? If they are not aggregated anymore by the above change? It's "provider aggregatABLE", and the ability to aggregate ain't impedet. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From cfriacas at fccn.pt Wed May 27 11:12:56 2009 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 10:12:56 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 26 May 2009, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2009-06 > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy > > Dear Colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 23 June 2009. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > Policy Development Manager > RIPE NCC > Hi, I also fully support this proposal. Best Regards, ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Friac,as See: Network Services Area www.gigapix.pt FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional www.6deploy.eu Av. do Brasil, n.101 www.fp7-federica.eu 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, Europe www.ipv6.eu Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167 www.fccn.pt ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Internet is just routes (294690/1890), naming (billions) and... people!" Esta mensagem foi enviada de: / This message was sent from: 2001:690:2080:8004:250:daff:fe3b:2830 (Yes, IPv6 is running... http://traffic.ip6.fccn.pt) Aviso de Confidencialidade Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo de imediato. Warning This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received due to any error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately. From slz at baycix.de Wed May 27 12:16:24 2009 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:16:24 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4A1D12F8.50701@baycix.de> Filiz Yilmaz schrieb: > PDP Number: 2009-06 > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy [...] no further discussion needed - support from over here, too. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ======================================================================== BayCIX GmbH * 84034 Landshut * Schillerstr. 2 Tel: +49 871 925360 * Fax: +49 871 9253629 eMail: technik at baycix.de GF: Thomas Zajac * HR B 4878 (Landshut) From Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl Wed May 27 12:21:17 2009 From: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl (Piotr Strzyzewski) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:21:17 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20090527102117.GB4829@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 04:30:34PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2009-06 > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy > > Dear Colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 23 June 2009. I fully support this proposal. Piotr Strzy?ewski -- gucio -> Piotr Strzy?ewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl From nigel at titley.com Wed May 27 12:44:49 2009 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:44:49 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4A1D19A1.6060601@titley.com> Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2009-06 > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy > > Seems sensible. Nigel From remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com Wed May 27 12:56:16 2009 From: remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:56:16 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: Dear all, I fully support this proposal. Kind regards, Remco van Mook On 26-05-09 16:30, "Filiz Yilmaz" wrote: > PDP Number: 2009-06 > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy > > Dear Colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 23 June 2009. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > Policy Development Manager > RIPE NCC > > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Ragnar.Anfinsen at lyse.no Wed May 27 13:33:19 2009 From: Ragnar.Anfinsen at lyse.no (Anfinsen, Ragnar) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:33:19 +0200 Subject: SV: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <4A1D19A1.6060601@titley.com> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> <4A1D19A1.6060601@titley.com> Message-ID: Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2009-06 > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy > > We are supporting this as well. Ragnar Anfinsen Lyse?Tele AS? From filiz at ripe.net Wed May 27 16:48:13 2009 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 16:48:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-07 New Policy Proposal (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries) Message-ID: <20090527144813.796BC2F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2009-07 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-07.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 24 June 2009. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC From marcoh at marcoh.net Wed May 27 16:51:10 2009 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 16:51:10 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <18498D1D-0B3A-4174-B901-2B5388B6F028@marcoh.net> On May 26, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: I support this proposal MarcoH From info at streamservice.nl Wed May 27 17:18:25 2009 From: info at streamservice.nl (Stream Service) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 17:18:25 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <18498D1D-0B3A-4174-B901-2B5388B6F028@marcoh.net> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> <18498D1D-0B3A-4174-B901-2B5388B6F028@marcoh.net> Message-ID: <004201c9dede$6150efd0$23f2cf70$@nl> I also support this proposal Mark -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Hogewoning Sent: woensdag 27 mei 2009 16:51 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) On May 26, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: I support this proposal MarcoH From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Wed May 27 17:35:15 2009 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 16:35:15 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4A1D5DB3.5030009@heanet.ie> Filiz Yilmaz wrote the following on 26/05/2009 15:30: > PDP Number: 2009-06 > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy Not to leap onto the bandwagon, but this is a sane and sensible proposal which I support. Brian. -- Brian Nisbet HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 fax: +35316603666 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ From alain.bidron at orange-ftgroup.com Wed May 27 18:03:33 2009 From: alain.bidron at orange-ftgroup.com (alain.bidron at orange-ftgroup.com) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 18:03:33 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > ? ?http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 23 June 2009. I fully support this proposal. Best regards Alain Bidron FT/PRESIDENCE/NCPI/NAD/EAS/NAN Head of Naming Addressing Numbering Unit tel. + 33 1 57 36 17 24 mob. + 33 6 87 65 90 94 alain.bidron at orange-ftgroup.com ********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. ******************************** From frederic at placenet.org Wed May 27 18:30:06 2009 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 18:30:06 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <1243441806.3866.1.camel@kzinti.placenet.org> we do not support this proposal and we would garant routing for min ipv6-PI block assignement. bst regards. F. Le mercredi 27 mai 2009 ? 18:03 +0200, alain.bidron at orange-ftgroup.com a ?crit : > > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > > discussion. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html > > > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > > before 23 June 2009. > > I fully support this proposal. > > Best regards > > > Alain Bidron > FT/PRESIDENCE/NCPI/NAD/EAS/NAN > > Head of Naming Addressing Numbering Unit > > tel. + 33 1 57 36 17 24 > > mob. + 33 6 87 65 90 94 > alain.bidron at orange-ftgroup.com > > > > > > > ********************************* > This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. > Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. > Messages are susceptible to alteration. > France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. > If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. > ******************************** > > From jeroen at unfix.org Wed May 27 18:36:48 2009 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 18:36:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <1243441806.3866.1.camel@kzinti.placenet.org> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> <1243441806.3866.1.camel@kzinti.placenet.org> Message-ID: <4A1D6C20.9040608@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Frederic wrote: > we do not support this proposal and we would garant routing for min > ipv6-PI block assignement. RIPE NCC cannot guarantee anything regarding routing. You need to communicate with the rest of the parties where you want your prefix to go if they want to accept it or not. Please see: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html#routability (see section 4.2. Routability Not Guaranteed in RIPE-466) As mentioned in the text of the proposal. Clearly there is a lot of confusion about this, thus, as I mentioned in my other mail, the text can be amended by removing those statements, but then there should definitely be a clear link to the above document. 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 frederic at placenet.org Wed May 27 18:41:23 2009 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 18:41:23 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <4A1D6C20.9040608@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> <1243441806.3866.1.camel@kzinti.placenet.org> <4A1D6C20.9040608@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: <1243442483.3866.7.camel@kzinti.placenet.org> Le mercredi 27 mai 2009 ? 18:36 +0200, Jeroen Massar a ?crit : > Frederic wrote: > > we do not support this proposal and we would garant routing for min > > ipv6-PI block assignement. > > RIPE NCC cannot guarantee anything regarding routing. yes we know. but we suggest that may be a good rule to write somewhere that it's ask to LIR to garant routing. so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let choice for operator so it let choice to not garant routing. bst regards. Frederic. > You need to > communicate with the rest of the parties where you want your prefix to > go if they want to accept it or not. > > Please see: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html#routability > (see section 4.2. Routability Not Guaranteed in RIPE-466) > As mentioned in the text of the proposal. > > > Clearly there is a lot of confusion about this, thus, as I mentioned in > my other mail, the text can be amended by removing those statements, but > then there should definitely be a clear link to the above document. > > Greets, > Jeroen > From leo.vegoda at icann.org Wed May 27 18:53:57 2009 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 09:53:57 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <1243442483.3866.7.camel@kzinti.placenet.org> Message-ID: On 27/05/2009 9:41, "Frederic" wrote: > Le mercredi 27 mai 2009 ? 18:36 +0200, Jeroen Massar a ?crit : >> Frederic wrote: >>> we do not support this proposal and we would garant routing for min >>> ipv6-PI block assignement. >> >> RIPE NCC cannot guarantee anything regarding routing. > > yes we know. > > but we suggest that may be a good rule to write somewhere that it's ask > to LIR to garant routing. There is a separate informational document describing the address space managed by the RIPE NCC. It identifies the minimum size allocations and assignments they make in each block they manage: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-469.html It includes a statement on routing decisions in section 3. Regards, Leo Vegoda From sander at steffann.nl Wed May 27 21:53:29 2009 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 21:53:29 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <1243442483.3866.7.camel@kzinti.placenet.org> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> <1243441806.3866.1.camel@kzinti.placenet.org> <4A1D6C20.9040608@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <1243442483.3866.7.camel@kzinti.placenet.org> Message-ID: Hello Frederic, > so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let > choice for operator so it let choice to not garant routing. Routing a block of address space *IS* the choice of the operator, and nobody can guarantee that a block of addresses is routed everywhere. RIPE policies will always leave this choice to the operators. It is even in the RIPE Terms of Reference: "IP networks collaborating in RIPE remain under the executive authority of their respective organisations". RIPE does give guidelines for network operators. A good example is http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-469.html#3 . - Sander From Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl Wed May 27 22:16:50 2009 From: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl (Piotr Strzyzewski) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 22:16:50 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2009-07 New Policy Proposal (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <20090527144813.796BC2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090527144813.796BC2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20090527201650.GA10227@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 04:48:13PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2009-07 > Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries > > Dear Colleagues > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-07.html > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 24 June 2009. I fully support this proposal. Piotr Strzy?ewski -- gucio -> Piotr Strzy?ewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl From ms at man-da.de Wed May 27 22:20:21 2009 From: ms at man-da.de (Marcus Stoegbauer) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 22:20:21 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4A1DA085.2020306@man-da.de> Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2009-06 > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html Since there is no practical way to enforce the aggregated announcement of an allocation I agree with all the sensible voices in this thread and support the proposal. Kind regards, Marcus From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Wed May 27 23:00:43 2009 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 21:00:43 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20090527210043.GB10727@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 04:30:34PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2009-06 > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy I fully support this proposed policy. rgds, Sascha From Ralph.Smit at nxs.nl Wed May 27 23:56:54 2009 From: Ralph.Smit at nxs.nl (Ralph Smit) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 23:56:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <20090527090546.GA10750@srv03.cluenet.de> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> <20090527090546.GA10750@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 04:30:34PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2009-06 > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html As many in this workgroup I also support this proposal. Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards, Ralph Smit. From dave.wilson at heanet.ie Wed May 27 22:35:33 2009 From: dave.wilson at heanet.ie (Dave Wilson) Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 15:35:33 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <1243442483.3866.7.camel@kzinti.placenet.org> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> <1243441806.3866.1.camel@kzinti.placenet.org> <4A1D6C20.9040608@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <1243442483.3866.7.camel@kzinti.placenet.org> Message-ID: <4A1DA415.9060304@heanet.ie> Hello Frederic, >>> we do not support this proposal and we would garant routing for min >>> ipv6-PI block assignement. >> RIPE NCC cannot guarantee anything regarding routing. > > yes we know. > > but we suggest that may be a good rule to write somewhere that it's ask > to LIR to garant routing. > > so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let choice > for operator so it let choice to not garant routing. I fully agree that we need to encourage good routing practice. Fortunately we have a working group at RIPE devoted to this topic. Unfortunately, this is not a document belonging to the routing working group. I think that this is more than an academic distinction; there has long been a reluctance to have addressing requirements polluted by routing requirements, which change on different timelines and are subject to different pressures. In particular, it is unwise to try to base addressing requirements based on routing policy of the day, since this is unlikely to lead to the efficient use of address space. This is already a live consideration, as became evident during the last RIPE meeting. For that reason, I see the change that this proposal would bring about as being a useful cleanup. I think everyone agrees that we need to aggregate our announcements properly, and the routing-wg needs to review that (and re-review it) on its own timelines, without causing a conflict on the addressing policy when no conflict is necessary. If we do not make the change, then we will have to come back repeatedly every time the routing best practice changes - or risk a serious conflict in policy. Does this reassure you on this proposal? Best regards, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Senior Network Engineer HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +353-1-660 9040 fax: +353-1-660 3666 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ H323 GDS:0035301101738 PGP: 1024D/C757ADA9 From andrea at ripe.net Thu May 28 14:28:39 2009 From: andrea at ripe.net (Andrea Cima) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 14:28:39 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Phase 2 Implementation: Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Message-ID: <4A1E8377.8030405@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that the RIPE NCC has implemented the second phase of "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC". In this phase the RIPE NCC will contact all LIRs to request information regarding existing direct resources requested through that LIR. This will be done via the LIR Portal. All LIR Portal users will receive a notification email on 28 May 2009 detailing the process. Details of the implementation are available at: http://www.ripe.net/rs/pi-existing-assignments.html Timelines: Before September 2009: LIRs need to indicate which resources should stay with that LIR. This will affect the charging scheme for 2010. Before 31 December 2009: LIRs must upload contracts and registration papers for all resources still associated with that LIR. More information on the requirements of the contractual agreement can be found here: http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-requirements.html Kind regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Thu May 28 17:47:51 2009 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 18:47:51 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Phase 2 Implementation: Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <4A1E8377.8030405@ripe.net> References: <4A1E8377.8030405@ripe.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 May 2009, Andrea Cima wrote: Serious bug here. I logged into the LIR portal under one LIR (il.iucc) and viewed the https://lirportal.ripe.net/policy200701/selectionPage page. I then closed that new page and logged off of il.iucc and logged into as il.isoc (different LIR). I then clicked on the the Independent Resources - Contractual Relationship link again and up popped the il.iucc info. It even stated on the top "You are logged in as hank with regid il.iucc." There isn't even a link to issue a "logoff" from that new page. Did someone forget to do QA here? -Hank > [Apologies for duplicates] > > Dear colleagues, > > We are pleased to announce that the RIPE NCC has implemented the second > phase of "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the > RIPE NCC". > > In this phase the RIPE NCC will contact all LIRs to request information > regarding existing direct resources requested through that LIR. This will > be done via the LIR Portal. All LIR Portal users will receive a > notification email on 28 May 2009 detailing the process. > > Details of the implementation are available at: > http://www.ripe.net/rs/pi-existing-assignments.html > > Timelines: > > Before September 2009: LIRs need to indicate which resources should stay > with that LIR. This will affect the charging scheme for 2010. > > Before 31 December 2009: LIRs must upload contracts and registration > papers for all resources still associated with that LIR. > > More information on the requirements of the contractual agreement can be > found here: > http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-requirements.html > > Kind regards, > > Andrea Cima > RIPE NCC > > > From nick at inex.ie Fri May 29 02:04:10 2009 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 01:04:10 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-07 New Policy Proposal (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <20090527144813.796BC2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090527144813.796BC2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4A1F267A.4050507@inex.ie> On 27/05/2009 15:48, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries No objection to 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 nick at inex.ie Fri May 29 02:09:21 2009 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 01:09:21 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4A1F27B1.5000002@inex.ie> On 26/05/2009 15:30, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2009-06 > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy I support this proposal for the usual arguments: - RIPE are not the routing police - important to maintain separation of address assignment policy from routing policy - no definition of what the "Internet" actually means in this context - just because an organisation hasn't announced an ipv6 prefix on the Internet-with-a-capital-I[*], that doesn't mean they aren't using the address space for other entirely valid purposes. 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 [*] whatever the "Internet-with-a-capital-I" means From nick at inex.ie Fri May 29 02:17:32 2009 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 01:17:32 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <1243442483.3866.7.camel@kzinti.placenet.org> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> <1243441806.3866.1.camel@kzinti.placenet.org> <4A1D6C20.9040608@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <1243442483.3866.7.camel@kzinti.placenet.org> Message-ID: <4A1F299C.3020804@inex.ie> On 27/05/2009 17:41, Frederic wrote: > but we suggest that may be a good rule to write somewhere that it's ask > to LIR to garant routing. > > so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let choice > for operator so it let choice to not garant routing. from my other mail to this mailing list: "- just because an organisation hasn't announced an ipv6 prefix on the Internet-with-a-capital-I[*], that doesn't mean they aren't using the address space for other entirely valid purposes." Frederic, can you please explain why a LIR which: 1. requires an ipv6 allocation for use on a private network 2. meets all the other requirements of the IPv6 address allocation policy 3. requires unique addresses (e.g. interconnecting with other private ipv6 networks) ... shouldn't be granted a RIPE IPv6 allocation? Or are you trying to say that there is only a single valid IPv6 network in the world? 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 [*] whatever the "Internet-with-a-capital-I" means From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri May 29 09:59:25 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 08:59:25 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <4A1F299C.3020804@inex.ie> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580161E51F@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > 1. requires an ipv6 allocation for use on a private network > 2. meets all the other requirements of the IPv6 address > allocation policy 3. requires unique addresses (e.g. > interconnecting with other private ipv6 > networks) According to the language of RFC 2050, points 1 and 3 contradict each other. If an organization requires addresses for interconnecting with other networks, then they are NOT a private network. Internetworks that do not connect to the public Internet are still require globally unique addresses for each of the participating networks. In the IPv4 world there are several such non-public internetworks which can connect thousands of organisations and I expect this to also happen in the IPv6 world. --Michael Dillon From poty at iiat.ru Fri May 29 10:12:48 2009 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:12:48 +0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) Message-ID: Nick, just because there is the word "private". Why should RIPE or some other organization (including mine) provide the registration and supporting service (for example - uniqueness) for PRIVATE networks? If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies - it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means for achieving that! Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:18 AM To: Frederic Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) On 27/05/2009 17:41, Frederic wrote: > but we suggest that may be a good rule to write somewhere that it's ask > to LIR to garant routing. > > so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let choice > for operator so it let choice to not garant routing. from my other mail to this mailing list: "- just because an organisation hasn't announced an ipv6 prefix on the Internet-with-a-capital-I[*], that doesn't mean they aren't using the address space for other entirely valid purposes." Frederic, can you please explain why a LIR which: 1. requires an ipv6 allocation for use on a private network 2. meets all the other requirements of the IPv6 address allocation policy 3. requires unique addresses (e.g. interconnecting with other private ipv6 networks) ... shouldn't be granted a RIPE IPv6 allocation? Or are you trying to say that there is only a single valid IPv6 network in the world? 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 [*] whatever the "Internet-with-a-capital-I" means From david.freedman at uk.clara.net Fri May 29 10:18:04 2009 From: david.freedman at uk.clara.net (David Freedman) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:18:04 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) References: Message-ID: <7B8B0D6F623C3A40A0D0A80A66756E2B010637@EXVS01.claranet.local> Vladislav, this is a function that the RIPE NCC have always provided, if this relationship is truely private then I would suggest consulting RFC1918 or RFC4193. ------------------------------------------------ David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Limited http://www.clara.net -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net on behalf of poty at iiat.ru Sent: Fri 5/29/2009 09:12 To: nick at inex.ie; frederic at placenet.org Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) Nick, just because there is the word "private". Why should RIPE or some other organization (including mine) provide the registration and supporting service (for example - uniqueness) for PRIVATE networks? If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies - it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means for achieving that! Potapov Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:18 AM To: Frederic Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) On 27/05/2009 17:41, Frederic wrote: > but we suggest that may be a good rule to write somewhere that it's ask > to LIR to garant routing. > > so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let choice > for operator so it let choice to not garant routing. from my other mail to this mailing list: "- just because an organisation hasn't announced an ipv6 prefix on the Internet-with-a-capital-I[*], that doesn't mean they aren't using the address space for other entirely valid purposes." Frederic, can you please explain why a LIR which: 1. requires an ipv6 allocation for use on a private network 2. meets all the other requirements of the IPv6 address allocation policy 3. requires unique addresses (e.g. interconnecting with other private ipv6 networks) ... shouldn't be granted a RIPE IPv6 allocation? Or are you trying to say that there is only a single valid IPv6 network in the world? 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 [*] whatever the "Internet-with-a-capital-I" means -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From poty at iiat.ru Fri May 29 10:27:24 2009 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:27:24 +0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) Message-ID: Maybe you are right, but it doesn't prove that is IS good in IPv6 world too. I can't understand, why I should think about such private matters (and indirectly fund this) and count it as arguments in the RIPE's policy development? If the allocation will never be announced to the public network called the Internet, then it's not the scope of our thinking! From: David Freedman [mailto:david.freedman at uk.clara.net] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:18 PM To: Potapov Vladislav; nick at inex.ie; frederic at placenet.org Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) Vladislav, this is a function that the RIPE NCC have always provided, if this relationship is truely private then I would suggest consulting RFC1918 or RFC4193. ------------------------------------------------ David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Limited http://www.clara.net -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net on behalf of poty at iiat.ru Sent: Fri 5/29/2009 09:12 To: nick at inex.ie; frederic at placenet.org Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) Nick, just because there is the word "private". Why should RIPE or some other organization (including mine) provide the registration and supporting service (for example - uniqueness) for PRIVATE networks? If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies - it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means for achieving that! Potapov Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:18 AM To: Frederic Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) On 27/05/2009 17:41, Frederic wrote: > but we suggest that may be a good rule to write somewhere that it's ask > to LIR to garant routing. > > so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let choice > for operator so it let choice to not garant routing. from my other mail to this mailing list: "- just because an organisation hasn't announced an ipv6 prefix on the Internet-with-a-capital-I[*], that doesn't mean they aren't using the address space for other entirely valid purposes." Frederic, can you please explain why a LIR which: 1. requires an ipv6 allocation for use on a private network 2. meets all the other requirements of the IPv6 address allocation policy 3. requires unique addresses (e.g. interconnecting with other private ipv6 networks) ... shouldn't be granted a RIPE IPv6 allocation? Or are you trying to say that there is only a single valid IPv6 network in the world? 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 [*] whatever the "Internet-with-a-capital-I" means -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeroen at unfix.org Fri May 29 10:36:41 2009 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:36:41 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A1F9E99.8070706@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> poty at iiat.ru wrote: > Maybe you are right, but it doesn?t prove that is IS good in IPv6 world > too. I can?t understand, why I should think about such private matters > (and indirectly fund this) and count it as arguments in the RIPE?s > policy development? If the allocation will never be announced to the > public network called the Internet, then it?s not the scope of our thinking! IPv4: * RFC1918 + just grab - everybody in the world uses it, lots of clashes - not suitable for interconnecting ever to other networks - generally implies a lot of NAT at one point in time * RIR-space + guaranteed globally unique - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it IPv6: * ULA, RFC4193 + nobody to talk to, calculate your own - never to be used anywhere on the Internet - not 100.00000% sure that it is globally unique (also see http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/ for a 'registry' which would make it at least "unique" when everybody uses that) - could imply NAT, though that should not be used with IPv6 * RIR-space + guaranteed globally unique + can be routed on the internet - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it You can pick what you want, but heed the warnings. 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 poty at iiat.ru Fri May 29 10:45:10 2009 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:45:10 +0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] Message-ID: Jeroen, The clash is about: * RIR-space + guaranteed globally unique + CAN be routed on the internet - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it My point of view: RIR-s space is for routing on the Internet. Not for private use! So it MUST be routed on the Internet. And private networks should invent their own rules, personally I will not object that as far as it is not affect my access to public part of the Internet! -----Original Message----- From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jeroen at unfix.org] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:37 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: david.freedman at uk.clara.net; nick at inex.ie; frederic at placenet.org; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] poty at iiat.ru wrote: > Maybe you are right, but it doesn't prove that is IS good in IPv6 > world too. I can't understand, why I should think about such private > matters (and indirectly fund this) and count it as arguments in the > RIPE's policy development? If the allocation will never be announced > to the public network called the Internet, then it's not the scope of our thinking! IPv4: * RFC1918 + just grab - everybody in the world uses it, lots of clashes - not suitable for interconnecting ever to other networks - generally implies a lot of NAT at one point in time * RIR-space + guaranteed globally unique - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it IPv6: * ULA, RFC4193 + nobody to talk to, calculate your own - never to be used anywhere on the Internet - not 100.00000% sure that it is globally unique (also see http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/ for a 'registry' which would make it at least "unique" when everybody uses that) - could imply NAT, though that should not be used with IPv6 * RIR-space + guaranteed globally unique + can be routed on the internet - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it You can pick what you want, but heed the warnings. Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shane at time-travellers.org Fri May 29 10:46:02 2009 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:46:02 +0200 Subject: RIPE policies and routing, was Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <4A1F27B1.5000002@inex.ie> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> <4A1F27B1.5000002@inex.ie> Message-ID: <1243586762.4341.30350.camel@shane-asus-laptop> All, I am neutral on this proposal, but I do have some thoughts about an assertion that has been made several times in the discussion: On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 01:09 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 26/05/2009 15:30, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > > PDP Number: 2009-06 > > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy > > I support this proposal for the usual arguments: > > - RIPE are not the routing police > - important to maintain separation of address assignment policy from > routing policy I think the idea that RIPE is not the routing police was mostly created to prevent people from calling in the RIPE NCC when someone would not peer with them or otherwise accept their advertisements. I do not think that this idea is meant to say that RIPE policies cannot include any routing requirements. For example, in the ASN policy (currently RIPE 463) we see: Current guidelines require a network to be multi-homed for an AS Number to be assigned. Requests must show the routing policy of the Autonomous System. As far as "policing" goes, RIPE is also not the DNS police, but we seem to be quite happy to restrict reverse delegations based on a huge set of checks (e-mail checks? really??): http://www.ripe.net/rs/reverse/delcheck/delcheck_descr.html If we look at the global IPv6 allocation and assignment policy shared by all RIRs (currently RIPE 466 in the RIPE region), they have the same principles, one of which is "aggregation". The text reads (in part): Wherever possible, address space should be distributed in a hierarchical manner, according to the topology of network infrastructure. This is necessary to permit the aggregation of routing information by ISPs and to limit the expansion of Internet routing tables. This goal is particularly important in IPv6 addressing, where the size of the total address pool creates significant implications for both internal and external routing. IPv6 address policies should seek to avoid fragmentation of address ranges. Note the last sentence there especially. I observe that RIPE policies can and do dictate routing requirements. Further, routing and address allocation are linked. Changing one will affect the other. Otherwise we wouldn't bother trying to make allocations that can be easily aggregated. I am *not* saying that it is a good idea to put routing requirements into policies. But we should not reject such requirements simply because "RIPE are not the routing police". Cheers, -- Shane From david.freedman at uk.clara.net Fri May 29 10:54:14 2009 From: david.freedman at uk.clara.net (David Freedman) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:54:14 +0100 Subject: RIPE policies and routing, was Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net><4A1F27B1.5000002@inex.ie> <1243586762.4341.30350.camel@shane-asus-laptop> Message-ID: <7B8B0D6F623C3A40A0D0A80A66756E2B01063B@EXVS01.claranet.local> >I observe that RIPE policies can and do dictate routing requirements. >Further, routing and address allocation are linked. Changing one will >affect the other It is quite common for policy to dictate one thing, but the operator community to do the other, address-policy appears to be being steered somewhat by the operator community now (see 2006-05 for instance), perhaps we need some synchronisation with routing-wg here? Dave. ------------------------------------------------ David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Limited http://www.clara.net -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net on behalf of Shane Kerr Sent: Fri 5/29/2009 09:46 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: RIPE policies and routing, was Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) All, I am neutral on this proposal, but I do have some thoughts about an assertion that has been made several times in the discussion: On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 01:09 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 26/05/2009 15:30, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > > PDP Number: 2009-06 > > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy > > I support this proposal for the usual arguments: > > - RIPE are not the routing police > - important to maintain separation of address assignment policy from > routing policy I think the idea that RIPE is not the routing police was mostly created to prevent people from calling in the RIPE NCC when someone would not peer with them or otherwise accept their advertisements. I do not think that this idea is meant to say that RIPE policies cannot include any routing requirements. For example, in the ASN policy (currently RIPE 463) we see: Current guidelines require a network to be multi-homed for an AS Number to be assigned. Requests must show the routing policy of the Autonomous System. As far as "policing" goes, RIPE is also not the DNS police, but we seem to be quite happy to restrict reverse delegations based on a huge set of checks (e-mail checks? really??): http://www.ripe.net/rs/reverse/delcheck/delcheck_descr.html If we look at the global IPv6 allocation and assignment policy shared by all RIRs (currently RIPE 466 in the RIPE region), they have the same principles, one of which is "aggregation". The text reads (in part): Wherever possible, address space should be distributed in a hierarchical manner, according to the topology of network infrastructure. This is necessary to permit the aggregation of routing information by ISPs and to limit the expansion of Internet routing tables. This goal is particularly important in IPv6 addressing, where the size of the total address pool creates significant implications for both internal and external routing. IPv6 address policies should seek to avoid fragmentation of address ranges. Note the last sentence there especially. I observe that RIPE policies can and do dictate routing requirements. Further, routing and address allocation are linked. Changing one will affect the other. Otherwise we wouldn't bother trying to make allocations that can be easily aggregated. I am *not* saying that it is a good idea to put routing requirements into policies. But we should not reject such requirements simply because "RIPE are not the routing police". Cheers, -- Shane -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeroen at unfix.org Fri May 29 10:56:58 2009 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:56:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A1FA35A.7000907@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> poty at iiat.ru wrote: > The clash is about: > > * RIR-space > + guaranteed globally unique > + *CAN* be routed on the internet > - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it > > My point of view: RIR-s space is for routing on the Internet. Not for > private use! So it MUST be routed on the Internet. Bad point of view. You are going to require that people route everything onto the Internet? Not going to happen. There are a lot of assigned blocks which you will never ever see on the Internet. And why would they be, it is their network, thus theirs to route or not, to firewall or not. > And private networks > should invent their own rules, personally I will not object that as far > as it is not affect my access to public part of the Internet! You mean a separate registry so that when people are "OH I WANT INTERNETZ" that they simply announce their prefix, which clashes with real prefixes on the Internet !? That will be a lot of fun. The sole reason for having registries in the first place is to make sure these little numbers are globally unique and that they thus don't clash. Ever tried to merge the network of a couple of banks after they where acquired by each other and all where using 192.168.0.0/16 in their internal "totally private" networks? Uniqueness is what is needed there for that to work. With IPv6 one has to option of ULA, for IPv4 though, there is not enough space for such a method, next to that, IPv4 is on the end of its life anyway. If one is going to deploy a network, use IPv6, especially when it is going to be "totally private" anyway, then just use ULA and you are happy. 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 poty at iiat.ru Fri May 29 10:58:28 2009 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:58:28 +0400 Subject: RIPE policies and routing, was Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) Message-ID: Shane, I'm fully agree with you! It's a pity I can't write this as clear as you! The RIPE was created for distributing resources for routing. Someone can't say RIPE is not routing policy because of that. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Shane Kerr Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:46 PM To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: RIPE policies and routing, was Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) All, I am neutral on this proposal, but I do have some thoughts about an assertion that has been made several times in the discussion: On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 01:09 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 26/05/2009 15:30, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > > PDP Number: 2009-06 > > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy > > I support this proposal for the usual arguments: > > - RIPE are not the routing police > - important to maintain separation of address assignment policy from > routing policy I think the idea that RIPE is not the routing police was mostly created to prevent people from calling in the RIPE NCC when someone would not peer with them or otherwise accept their advertisements. I do not think that this idea is meant to say that RIPE policies cannot include any routing requirements. For example, in the ASN policy (currently RIPE 463) we see: Current guidelines require a network to be multi-homed for an AS Number to be assigned. Requests must show the routing policy of the Autonomous System. As far as "policing" goes, RIPE is also not the DNS police, but we seem to be quite happy to restrict reverse delegations based on a huge set of checks (e-mail checks? really??): http://www.ripe.net/rs/reverse/delcheck/delcheck_descr.html If we look at the global IPv6 allocation and assignment policy shared by all RIRs (currently RIPE 466 in the RIPE region), they have the same principles, one of which is "aggregation". The text reads (in part): Wherever possible, address space should be distributed in a hierarchical manner, according to the topology of network infrastructure. This is necessary to permit the aggregation of routing information by ISPs and to limit the expansion of Internet routing tables. This goal is particularly important in IPv6 addressing, where the size of the total address pool creates significant implications for both internal and external routing. IPv6 address policies should seek to avoid fragmentation of address ranges. Note the last sentence there especially. I observe that RIPE policies can and do dictate routing requirements. Further, routing and address allocation are linked. Changing one will affect the other. Otherwise we wouldn't bother trying to make allocations that can be easily aggregated. I am *not* saying that it is a good idea to put routing requirements into policies. But we should not reject such requirements simply because "RIPE are not the routing police". Cheers, -- Shane From frederic at placenet.org Fri May 29 11:04:28 2009 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:04:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <4A1F27B1.5000002@inex.ie> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> <4A1F27B1.5000002@inex.ie> Message-ID: <1243587868.4396.19.camel@kzinti.placenet.org> Le vendredi 29 mai 2009 ? 01:09 +0100, Nick Hilliard a ?crit : > On 26/05/2009 15:30, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > > PDP Number: 2009-06 > > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy > > I support this proposal for the usual arguments: > > - RIPE are not the routing police it should for democratic purpose, for a minimal routing police not all routing police. > - important to maintain separation of address assignment policy from > routing policy > - no definition of what the "Internet" actually means in this context > - just because an organisation hasn't announced an ipv6 prefix on the > Internet-with-a-capital-I[*], that doesn't mean they aren't using the > address space for other entirely valid purposes. > inside an operator made what it want for him and custumers, for the outside (public) of his network , i think it must garant that others networks are visible inside his network. but this proposal: Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 suppress one requirement for the allocation only and do not garant that the requirement stay in time. i think : when allocation is made the ripe require(by principe), after the operator is free (and that it is). like for PI the ripe require routing : multihomed. multihoming may for many reasons do not stay true in time. bst regards. Frederic > Nick From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri May 29 11:18:35 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:18:35 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580161E6C9@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > My point of view: RIR-s space is for routing on the Internet. > Not for private use! So it MUST be routed on the Internet. This is wrong. The Internet Protocol (IP) was not invented only to create the public Internet. It was created so that all networks, that want to interconnect with another network, have an internetworking protocol that does the job. The public Internet is the biggest internetwork but it is not the only one. Globally unique addresses are required so that a network can interconnect with other networks without renumbering. The RIRs are not there to serve the Internet. They are there to serve the users of IP technology which is a bigger group than just the Internet. It is OK for RIPE to provide services that are only needed on the Internet, but it is not nice if RIPE would stop providing services to IP users who are not connected to the Internet. In English, the word "private" has different meanings which cause confusion. In addition we use the word "network" to refer to both networks and internetworks which adds to the confusion. --Michael Dillon From poty at iiat.ru Fri May 29 11:39:45 2009 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:39:45 +0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] Message-ID: I think you intentionally make confusion for everyone. ----Your---------- This is wrong. The Internet Protocol (IP) was not invented only to create the public Internet. It was created so that all networks, that want to interconnect with another network, have an internetworking protocol that does the job. The public Internet is the biggest internetwork but it is not the only one. Globally unique addresses are required so that a network can interconnect with other networks without renumbering. --------------- Nobody, including me, prevents you or someone else to using IP addresses! The term "Globally unique addresses" is useful if you mean PUBLIC part of the network. In my own network I can use the address I like, not involving the RIPE or any other organizations and rules. If I want to interconnect with another network I should agree with the network only, not with all the world. ----Your---------- The RIRs are not there to serve the Internet. They are there to serve the users of IP technology which is a bigger group than just the Internet. It is OK for RIPE to provide services that are only needed on the Internet, but it is not nice if RIPE would stop providing services to IP users who are not connected to the Internet. --------------- Not at all: "The RIPE NCC is an independent, not-for-profit membership organisation that supports the infrastructure of the Internet through technical co-ordination in its service region. The most prominent activity of the RIPE NCC is to act as the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) providing global Internet resources and related services (IPv4, IPv6 and AS Number resources) to members in the RIPE NCC service region." The users, that not connected to the Internet, are not in scope of the RIPE. IP is not the only network technology. And the network is not the only activity in the World. From poty at iiat.ru Fri May 29 11:51:36 2009 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:51:36 +0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] Message-ID: See in-line -----Original Message----- From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jeroen at unfix.org] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:57 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: david.freedman at uk.clara.net; nick at inex.ie; frederic at placenet.org; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] poty at iiat.ru wrote: > The clash is about: > > * RIR-space > + guaranteed globally unique > + *CAN* be routed on the internet > - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it > > My point of view: RIR-s space is for routing on the Internet. Not for > private use! So it MUST be routed on the Internet. Bad point of view. You are going to require that people route everything onto the Internet? Not going to happen. There are a lot of assigned blocks which you will never ever see on the Internet. And why would they be, it is their network, thus theirs to route or not, to firewall or not. 1. "assigned" blocks is not the things, that involves the routing. If you mean allocations - say that. 2. If it is THEIR networks, why the need GLOBALLY unique addresses? Then they could use ANY addresses they like not asking me, or you, or RIPE! > And private networks > should invent their own rules, personally I will not object that as > far as it is not affect my access to public part of the Internet! You mean a separate registry so that when people are "OH I WANT INTERNETZ" that they simply announce their prefix, which clashes with real prefixes on the Internet !? That will be a lot of fun. I think you can't understand what is difference between private usage and announcing the block in the Internet. If you want to use some IP addresses privately, you can do it without any RIR. And only in the case you want to announce some block to the public network, you have to abide the Internet rules and get unique numbers! The sole reason for having registries in the first place is to make sure these little numbers are globally unique and that they thus don't clash. Ever tried to merge the network of a couple of banks after they where acquired by each other and all where using 192.168.0.0/16 in their internal "totally private" networks? Uniqueness is what is needed there for that to work. It's the problem of the merging banks or any other companies, not the whole World. Why RIPE should do the work for them? Or take in the consideration the internal problems of SOME cases into the whole region policy? Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sander at steffann.nl Fri May 29 11:52:11 2009 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:52:11 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: RIPE policies and routing In-Reply-To: <7B8B0D6F623C3A40A0D0A80A66756E2B01063B@EXVS01.claranet.local> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net><4A1F27B1.5000002@inex.ie> <1243586762.4341.30350.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <7B8B0D6F623C3A40A0D0A80A66756E2B01063B@EXVS01.claranet.local> Message-ID: <1319.80.101.103.96.1243590731.squirrel@webmail.sintact.nl> Hello Dave, >>I observe that RIPE policies can and do dictate routing requirements. >>Further, routing and address allocation are linked. Changing one will >>affect the other > > It is quite common for policy to dictate one thing, but the operator > community to do the other, > address-policy appears to be being steered somewhat by the operator > community now > (see 2006-05 for instance), perhaps we need some synchronisation with > routing-wg here? The proposer of 2009-06 is one of the chairs of the routing-wg :) Sander From jeroen at unfix.org Fri May 29 11:57:35 2009 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:57:35 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A1FB18F.4010404@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> > See in-line > [.. my message follows..] Can you PLEASE fix your mail client: - You have no full-name configured (even though it seems to be an exchange thing which more or less requires that) - you are replying in-line without proper ">" prefixing. Even switching to "HTML mode" doesn't make the indentation make any sense. Fix that, and maybe I'll be able to reply to the points you are trying to make, as now it is impossible to understand what you wrote or not. 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 poty at iiat.ru Fri May 29 12:03:08 2009 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:03:08 +0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] Message-ID: See in-line-2 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jeroen at unfix.org] > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:57 PM ... > You are going to require that people route everything onto the > Internet? > Not going to happen. There are a lot of assigned blocks which you will > never ever see on the Internet. And why would they be, it is their > network, thus theirs to route or not, to firewall or not. > 1. "assigned" blocks is not the things, that involves the routing. If you mean allocations - say that. 2. If it is THEIR networks, why the need GLOBALLY unique addresses? Then they could use ANY addresses they like not asking me, or you, or RIPE! > > And private networks > > should invent their own rules, personally I will not object that as > > far as it is not affect my access to public part of the Internet! > > You mean a separate registry so that when people are "OH I WANT > INTERNETZ" that they simply announce their prefix, which clashes with > real prefixes on the Internet !? That will be a lot of fun. I think you can't understand what is difference between private usage and announcing the block in the Internet. If you want to use some IP addresses privately, you can do it without any RIR. And only in the case you want to announce some block to the public network, you have to abide the Internet rules and get unique numbers! > The sole reason for having registries in the first place is to make > sure these little numbers are globally unique and that they thus don't > clash. > > Ever tried to merge the network of a couple of banks after they where > acquired by each other and all where using 192.168.0.0/16 in their > internal "totally private" networks? > > Uniqueness is what is needed there for that to work. > It's the problem of the merging banks or any other companies, not the whole World. Why RIPE should do the work for them? Or take in the consideration the internal problems of SOME cases into the whole region policy? Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri May 29 12:03:16 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:03:16 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580161E7EE@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > The term "Globally unique addresses" is useful if you mean > PUBLIC part of the network. In my own network I can use the > address I like, not involving the RIPE or any other > organizations and rules. If I want to interconnect with > another network I should agree with the network only, not > with all the world. Let me describe a real situation that we have with some of our customers. One of several IP networks that we operate is called Radianz. This network has PoPs in 120 countries and has over 3000 customers connected to it, many of them with multiple connections in different cities. This network is an internetwork because it interconnects the networks of 3000 other organizations. In order to function, this network requires globally unique IP addresses to be used for each of its member networks even though it is not connected to the Internet. The Radianz network is not a private network. It is also not a public network. But it is a SHARED network just like the public Internet. Historically, IANA has always allocated globally unique IP addresses to organizations on this type of shared network. When RFC 2050 was written by authors from the RIRs, including RIPE, they included this text: the organization has no intention of connecting to the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still requires a globally unique IP address. The organization should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918. If it is determined this is not possible, they can be issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses. Remember that I said "It is OK for RIPE to provide services that are only needed on the Internet, but it is not nice if RIPE would stop providing services to IP users who are not connected to the Internet.". The Radianz global network is not the only internetwork of this type. There are at least 3 other global ones that I have come across, and there are probably many regional ones as well. A very large number of organizations depend on these internetworks, and they would not be terribly happy if ISPs would hijack the entire IP address space for their own profits. But I think that the RIR boards understand this and have no intention of changing the rules to reserve IP addresses only for the public Internet. --Michael Dillon From david.freedman at uk.clara.net Fri May 29 12:05:52 2009 From: david.freedman at uk.clara.net (David Freedman) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:05:52 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] References: Message-ID: <7B8B0D6F623C3A40A0D0A80A66756E2B01063E@EXVS01.claranet.local> >It's the problem of the merging banks or any other companies, not the >whole World. Why RIPE should do the work for them? I distill that argument down to "why should we help eachother", this is starting to go seriously off-topic now. Dave. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From poty at iiat.ru Fri May 29 12:16:56 2009 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:16:56 +0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] Message-ID: See in-line: > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of michael.dillon at bt.com > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 2:03 PM > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Let me describe a real situation that we have with some > of our customers. One of several IP networks that we > operate is called Radianz. This network has PoPs in > 120 countries and has over 3000 customers connected > to it, many of them with multiple connections in different > cities. This network is an internetwork because it > interconnects the networks of 3000 other organizations. > In order to function, this network requires globally > unique IP addresses to be used for each of its > member networks even though it is not connected to > the Internet. > > The Radianz network is not a private network. It is > also not a public network. But it is a SHARED network > just like the public Internet. Then Radianz could easily create its own rules without bothering the World, couldn't it? And so - use ANY IP addresses. Why should I see the internal networks (I use corrected "private" meanings) of Radianz or other such companys? If it is NEVER interact with my or the most of other networks in the Internet? > Historically, IANA has > always allocated globally unique IP addresses to > organizations on this type of shared network. When > RFC 2050 was written by authors from the RIRs, including > RIPE, they included this text: > > the organization has no intention of connecting to > the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still > requires a globally unique IP address. The organization > should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918. > If it is determined this is not possible, they can be > issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses. > Now, the "historically" invented state should be corrected. Not all IPv4 practice should be automatically go to IPv6. Several of them are too company-specific rather than serve ALL community. > > A very large number of organizations depend on these > internetworks, and they would not be terribly happy if > ISPs would hijack the entire IP address space for their > own profits. But I think that the RIR boards understand > this and have no intention of changing the rules to > reserve IP addresses only for the public Internet. A very large, but not all! A very large number of organization (I think much more than for Radianz) depends on the services, not presented here and not gain any good from that. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat From randy at psg.com Fri May 29 12:17:10 2009 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 19:17:10 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > My point of view: RIR-s space is for routing on the Internet. that is a nice new proposal, but not the way it has been for a few decades. essentially, the lesson has been that, whatever you think now, it is highly likely that it will be connected to the internet eventually. randy From poty at iiat.ru Fri May 29 12:17:50 2009 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:17:50 +0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] Message-ID: Not each other, but all to some! From: David Freedman [mailto:david.freedman at uk.clara.net] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 2:06 PM To: Potapov Vladislav; jeroen at unfix.org Cc: nick at inex.ie; frederic at placenet.org; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] >It's the problem of the merging banks or any other companies, not the >whole World. Why RIPE should do the work for them? I distill that argument down to "why should we help eachother", this is starting to go seriously off-topic now. Dave. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri May 29 12:29:11 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:29:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580161E888@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> >> I distill that argument down to "why should we help >> eachother", this is starting to go seriously off-topic now. > Not each other, but all to some! Reductio ad absurdum. You argue "why should the many help the few?". Perhaps you are right. Perhaps the RIRs should stop helping the few ISPs of the world and instead allocate one of the 4 billion IPv4 addresses to each one of the world's 4 billon people. Of course, the fact is that by sharing equally with everybody, the RIRs would be helping nobody at all. The current system has evolved precisely because it provides the MOST benefits to the MOST people. It does not force everyone to conform to the RIPE way of doing things, instead RIPE changes its practice to align with the needs of everyone else. There is give and take, compromises are found, and everybody gets to make their networks work well enough so that the industry keeps growing. IPv4 runout proves that the historical ways are the right ways. --Michael Dillon From poty at iiat.ru Fri May 29 12:42:42 2009 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:42:42 +0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] Message-ID: IPv4 exists most of it's time without RIR at all. So it's not prove anything. Other consideration is only philosophy, not policy. > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of michael.dillon at bt.com > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 2:29 PM > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] > ... > > IPv4 runout proves that the historical ways are the right ways. > > --Michael Dillon > From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Fri May 29 15:45:19 2009 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 15:45:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-07 New Policy Proposal (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries) References: <20090527144813.796BC2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BCE63A4F@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Before this gets lost in the loud and off-topic discussion about 2009-06: I fully support this proposal in the sense that it improves on the current situation - I'm afraid however that we'll be looking at a new proposal somewhere next year extending the date even further out. We could lose a lot of time discussing this date (or any other arbitrary deadline other than actually running out) but I'd rather see this proposal accepted as-is ASAP. Best, Remco > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Filiz Yilmaz > Sent: woensdag 27 mei 2009 16:48 > To: policy-announce at ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-07 New Policy Proposal > (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for > Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries) > > PDP Number: 2009-07 > Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for > Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries > > Dear Colleagues > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-07.html > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 24 June 2009. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > Policy Development Manager > RIPE NCC > > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383. From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Fri May 29 22:09:05 2009 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 20:09:05 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A2040E1.9030408@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Vladislav, I have to strongly disagree with your assertions. poty at iiat.ru wrote: > Nick, just because there is the word "private". > Why should RIPE or some other organization (including mine) provide the > registration and supporting service (for example - uniqueness) for PRIVATE > networks? First of all, RIPE is the Community, the RIPE NCC is executing the policies and providing e.g. the Registration Services. Every organsiation obtaining services, e.g. an IP-Address Assignment or an Allocation are contributing to offset the expenses; either directly or by way of an existing LIR. > If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies - > it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means for > achieving that! The TCP/IP Technology (including the resources to uniquely identify the individual components) are - and indeed should continue to be - accessible to the full community. Whether using this stuff on the "Internet" or for some other purpose is not a discriminating factor here. > Vladislav Potapov > Ru.iiat PS: we have already seen the disadvantage of liberally applying RFC1918, i.e. non-unique, addressing in organisations that eventually were (forced to) connecting to other organisations.... From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Fri May 29 22:13:28 2009 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 20:13:28 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4A2041E8.2080600@CC.UniVie.ac.at> I'd like to state my full support for this policy proposal. Wilfried. Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2009-06 > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy > > Dear Colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 23 June 2009. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > Policy Development Manager > RIPE NCC > > From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Fri May 29 22:27:15 2009 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 20:27:15 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <4A1D053E.5010304@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> References: <20090526143034.7CB722F583@herring.ripe.net> <20090527090546.GA10750@srv03.cluenet.de> <4A1D053E.5010304@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: <4A204523.1010604@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Hi Jeroen, Jeroen Massar wrote: [...] > To twist this in another way: could there be added a requirement that > prefixes are properly registered in RPSL? That would help ISPs decide > which prefixes should be there and how to filter, with maybe having > exclusions. Thanks for bringing this idea forward (again) :-) > Greets, > Jeroen I doubt that a formal policy to require (reasonably complete and detailed) documentation of routing policies amongst ASes will reach consensus, but I'd love to see it tried once again :-) Any such attempt would probably be best made in the framework of the Routing-WG. Wilfried. PS: btw. even if adopted in a region, it would only make real sense if adopted on a global scale and within the framework of a global(ly integrated) IRR. Dreams.... From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Fri May 29 22:50:36 2009 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 20:50:36 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A204A9C.6090206@CC.UniVie.ac.at> poty at iiat.ru wrote: > IPv4 exists most of it's time without RIR at all. So it's not prove > anything. May I suggest that you read up on reality, in particular the period of substantial growth and wide-spread penetration? > Other consideration is only philosophy, not policy. Interesting... My feeling is that we should go back to real-life issues. Wilfried. From gert at space.net Sat May 30 13:59:57 2009 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 13:59:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580161E7EE@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580161E7EE@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <20090530115957.GQ2776@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:03:16AM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > A very large number of organizations depend on these > internetworks, and they would not be terribly happy if > ISPs would hijack the entire IP address space for their > own profits. But I think that the RIR boards understand > this and have no intention of changing the rules to > reserve IP addresses only for the public Internet. Let me second that. This has always been my understanding on the principles that govern the RIRs' operation - "provide unique numbers to the people that need unique numbers". Be it IPv4, IPv6 or ASes. We have had customers in the past that needed unique IPv4 space, to be able to run their internal VPN networks without address clashes - and I think this is a very very reasonable reason to request globally unique address space. So did the RIPE NCC, and assigned IPv4 PI to them. Since we have enough address space in IPv6, this whole discussion is a bit moot - what would we gain if we change RIR operations to "only assign space that is required to be publically routed"? With the current rate that IPv6 /32s and /48s are handed out, we'll need a few 100 years to fill up the first 1/8 of the IPv6 address space (FP 001) - and if we notice in 50 years that our model is indeed too wastive, we can try again with FP 010 or one of the other 6/8 of the available IPv6 address space. Prefixes that *are* routed on the public Internet are likely going to be a bigger issue (due to limited routing table slots) than prefixes that are *not* routed. There's 500 million /32s in FP001, and if 99.9% of those disappears into hiding, we still have 500.000 potential routing table entries to worry about... (very rough math, neglecting more specifics and /48s, but those wouldn't change the point - non-routed space is not our problem here). So - can we please get back to somewhat more relevant topics? Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From gert at space.net Sat May 30 14:05:57 2009 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 14:05:57 +0200 Subject: RIPE policies and routing, was Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) In-Reply-To: <7B8B0D6F623C3A40A0D0A80A66756E2B01063B@EXVS01.claranet.local> References: <1243586762.4341.30350.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <7B8B0D6F623C3A40A0D0A80A66756E2B01063B@EXVS01.claranet.local> Message-ID: <20090530120557.GR2776@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 09:54:14AM +0100, David Freedman wrote: > (see 2006-05 for instance), perhaps we need some synchronisation with routing-wg here? We're right in the middle of this :-) The goal is (as has been presented in the Friday plenary at the last RIPE meeting) to get rid of the routing requirements in the address policy documents, *while at the same time* coming up with a good routing recommendation / requirements document from the routing WG. The routing WG already produced RIPE-399, which might already cover all our worries (need to re-read it myself). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From andy at nosignal.org Sun May 31 08:43:57 2009 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 07:43:57 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-07 New Policy Proposal (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <20090527144813.796BC2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090527144813.796BC2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: On 27 May 2009, at 15:48, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of > ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries [...] > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-07.html Hi, Filiz, everyone -- I support this proposal. As somebody involved with spreading information about the operational problems that were discovered with several asn32 implementations, please could I make a few comments : - The time-extension should be to help mitigate effects of the first generation asn32 bgp code, not buy a solution to inertia. ASN32 is now broadly safe to plan and implement, so understand the issues that were uncovered last year and then please do roll out a safe implementation on your networks ! - Do we need an additional RIPE policy alongside this advisory, extending the asn16 space in the ripe region by some months or a year ? Kind regards, Andy Davidson From andy at nosignal.org Sun May 31 08:55:13 2009 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 07:55:13 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16A18897-1D34-4291-9D3A-1975F2F96886@nosignal.org> On 29 May 2009, at 11:16, wrote: > Then Radianz could easily create its own rules without bothering the > World, couldn't it? And so - use ANY IP addresses. Why should I see > the > internal networks (I use corrected "private" meanings) of Radianz or > other such companys? If it is NEVER interact with my or the most of > other networks in the Internet? Hi, Vladislav As others have tried to point out, private networks often still connect to the Internet, so in order to prevent connectivity problems between -- in this case, Radianz -- and another, unspecified network on the Internet, then the addressing that Radianz need to use for their private networks must be globally unique. IP networks can't function properly (or at least, as intended) when consumers of addresses start using addresses that are already assigned to others already. We shall see this be a problem for networks who ignore this warning as the last v4 /8s start to be assigned. Kind regards, Andy Davidson From andy at nosignal.org Sun May 31 13:39:19 2009 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 12:39:19 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] In-Reply-To: References: <16A18897-1D34-4291-9D3A-1975F2F96886@nosignal.org> Message-ID: <8FC01E37-8D8D-4DA0-BFB9-F00EF76C79F5@nosignal.org> On 31 May 2009, at 11:28, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > "Andy Davidson" wrote: > >> IP networks can't function properly (or at least, as intended) when >> consumers of addresses start using addresses that are already >> assigned to others already. >> >> We shall see this be a problem for networks who ignore this warning >> as the last v4 /8s start to be assigned. > > Actually who is mandated to act as a policeman when this happens? > Is it IANA? Is it the RIRs? Is it informal routing agreements > outside the realm of these organizations? Nobody - just as nobody can guarantee reach-ability. Andy From jcousteau at gmail.com Fri May 29 23:06:14 2009 From: jcousteau at gmail.com (J Cousteau) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:06:14 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] In-Reply-To: <4A204A9C.6090206@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4A204A9C.6090206@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: Amen ! On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet < Woeber at cc.univie.ac.at> wrote: > poty at iiat.ru wrote: > > > IPv4 exists most of it's time without RIR at all. So it's not prove > > anything. > > May I suggest that you read up on reality, in particular the period > of substantial growth and wide-spread penetration? > > > Other consideration is only philosophy, not policy. > > Interesting... > My feeling is that we should go back to real-life issues. > > Wilfried. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: