From mir at ripe.net Fri Feb 3 13:37:52 2012 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:37:52 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011 IPv4 Allocation Statistics on RIPE Labs Message-ID: <4F2BD520.7080601@ripe.net> [apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, We just published some interesting IPv4 allocation statistics on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv4-allocation-statistics-2011 Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From emadaio at ripe.net Fri Feb 3 16:05:30 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:05:30 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Draft Document will be produced (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The discussion period for the proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-545 has ended. With the agreement of the Address Policy WG Chairs, the proposers decided to move the proposal to the Review Phase as per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE". A draft document will now be prepared for review. We will publish the document shortly and we will make an announcement. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From mir at ripe.net Mon Feb 6 16:31:59 2012 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:31:59 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New Article on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Address Space Growth per Country Message-ID: <4F2FF26F.1070709@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, Please see a new article by Emile Aben on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Address Space Growth per Country https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ipv4-address-space-growth-per-country Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From emadaio at ripe.net Tue Feb 14 15:42:05 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:42:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation", has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 13 March 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From madams at netcologne.de Wed Feb 15 16:32:38 2012 From: madams at netcologne.de (Michael Adams) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:32:38 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) Message-ID: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> Hi all. Am 14.02.2012 15:42, schrieb Emilio Madaio: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 13 March 2012. I'm 100% happy with the draft but one thing circles in my mind. 5.1.2 says it's possible to qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 based on the number of existing users. Shouldn't this be possible for existing IPv6 space holders too? 5.7 doesn't mention this. Just a thought... Michael -- Michael Adams Tel: +49 221 2222 657 Network Engineering & Design Fax: +49 221 2222 7657 NetCologne Gesch?ftsf?hrer Gesellschaft f?r Telekommunikation mbH Dr. Hans Konle (Sprecher) Am Coloneum 9 Dipl.-Ing. Karl-Heinz Zankel 50829 K?ln HRB 25580, Amtsgericht K?ln From tbb at ines.ro Wed Feb 15 16:47:59 2012 From: tbb at ines.ro (Tiberiu Ungureanu) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:47:59 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> Message-ID: <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 16:32 +0100, Michael Adams wrote: > 5.1.2 says it's possible to qualify for an initial allocation greater > than /29 based on the number of existing users. > > Shouldn't this be possible for existing IPv6 space holders too? > 5.7 doesn't mention this. Existing IPv6 space holders can request (under the new policy) space to get them to /29. Should they NEED more, based on their existing users, they would probably qualify to request additional space. If they don't qualify to request additional space, do they really NEED more? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From dr at cluenet.de Wed Feb 15 21:10:02 2012 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:10:02 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> Message-ID: <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:47:59AM -0500, Tiberiu Ungureanu wrote: > Existing IPv6 space holders can request (under the new policy) space to > get them to /29. Should they NEED more, based on their existing users, > they would probably qualify to request additional space. If they don't > qualify to request additional space, do they really NEED more? The problem is that the "additional allocation" policy is far more draconian than the "initial allocation" policy. HD ratio doesn't matter for the initial alloc, but for any additional alloc. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From jan at go6.si Wed Feb 15 22:20:18 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:20:18 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <4F3C2192.4030809@go6.si> On 2/15/12 9:10 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:47:59AM -0500, Tiberiu Ungureanu wrote: >> Existing IPv6 space holders can request (under the new policy) >> space to get them to /29. Should they NEED more, based on their >> existing users, they would probably qualify to request additional >> space. If they don't qualify to request additional space, do they >> really NEED more? > > The problem is that the "additional allocation" policy is far more > draconian than the "initial allocation" policy. > > HD ratio doesn't matter for the initial alloc, but for any > additional alloc. What I read here is that probably we'll have to revise additional alloc policy part when we are done with 2011-04, am I right? Cheers, Jan From tbb at ines.ro Wed Feb 15 22:43:10 2012 From: tbb at ines.ro (Tiberiu Ungureanu) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:43:10 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <1329342190.31355.51.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 21:10 +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:47:59AM -0500, Tiberiu Ungureanu wrote: > > Existing IPv6 space holders can request (under the new policy) space to > > get them to /29. Should they NEED more, based on their existing users, > > they would probably qualify to request additional space. If they don't > > qualify to request additional space, do they really NEED more? > > The problem is that the "additional allocation" policy is far more > draconian than the "initial allocation" policy. > > HD ratio doesn't matter for the initial alloc, but for any additional > alloc. Ok, I feel this is troll-feeding, but I'll bite: From what you say, I understand that you are dissatisfied with the "_additional_ allocation" policy. Why are you trying to change the "_initial_ allocation" policy then? If there's a problem with additional allocation policy, fix that, don't break this one. We're technology professionals for heaven's sake, not politicians. If the scissors are broken, don't try to "fix" the hammer! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jan at go6.si Wed Feb 15 23:50:27 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:50:27 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <1329342190.31355.51.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> <1329342190.31355.51.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> Message-ID: <4F3C36B3.8030405@go6.si> On 2/15/12 10:43 PM, Tiberiu Ungureanu wrote: > Ok, I feel this is troll-feeding, but I'll bite: From what you say, I > understand that you are dissatisfied with the "_additional_ allocation" > policy. Why are you trying to change the "_initial_ allocation" policy > then? If there's a problem with additional allocation policy, fix that, > don't break this one. Hi, I don't really understand this comment. Daniel is not trying to change anything - Mark, Jordi and myself are trying to change initial alloc policy. We all need to have a look also in additional alloc policy later on, if we feel it's not optimal - but currently this has nothing to do with our (2011-04) proposal. Cheers, Jan From dr at cluenet.de Thu Feb 16 00:50:40 2012 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:50:40 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <1329342190.31355.51.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> <1329342190.31355.51.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> Message-ID: <20120215235039.GA21155@srv03.cluenet.de> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 04:43:10PM -0500, Tiberiu Ungureanu wrote: > Ok, I feel this is troll-feeding, Thanks for your kind words. > From what you say, I understand that you are dissatisfied with the > "_additional_ allocation" policy. Correct. > Why are you trying to change the "_initial_ allocation" policy > then? I'm not - as without also changing the additional allocation policy, it's meaningless for anyone in danger of "needing more" in the future. Especially as I'm told that the initial allocation request is NOT evaluated with "a long term perspective", but just 2-3 years. I refrain to speculate about the background of that number. So you can quite liberally (and even more so after 2011-04 passes) get an allocation of size X for 2-3 years, and after that you can completely revamp your addressing scheme and renumber everything because you suddenly can't get more space with exactly the same plan with which you got your initial allocation. How broken is THAT please? What a mess. And IPv6 was supposed to make things easier. Especially regarding internal addressing hierarchy (for that you need BITS in your prefix!). But we're effectively left with "have 36.86% of your alloc in use" (IPv6 HD-Ratio requirement for additional alloc >/32) instead of the IPv4 80%. Most excellent. HD-Ratio 0.94 way over the top. > If there's a problem with additional allocation policy, fix that, > don't break this one. I'm not breaking anything, I'm just pointing out that the initial and additional allocation policies already differ significantly and that this makes no sense to me. 2011-04 just makes that discrepancy even worse. Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From dr at cluenet.de Thu Feb 16 01:12:56 2012 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:12:56 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <4F3C2192.4030809@go6.si> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> <4F3C2192.4030809@go6.si> Message-ID: <20120216001256.GB21155@srv03.cluenet.de> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:20:18PM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: >> The problem is that the "additional allocation" policy is far more >> draconian than the "initial allocation" policy. >> >> HD ratio doesn't matter for the initial alloc, but for any >> additional alloc. > > What I read here is that probably we'll have to revise additional alloc > policy part when we are done with 2011-04, am I right? Yesterday. I see 2011-04 more as a vehicle to buy us three more bits to fix the additional allocation policy mess hopefully in time before folks need more than a /29, and that's why I don't oppose it. :-) Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From nick at inex.ie Thu Feb 16 01:27:35 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:27:35 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <20120216001256.GB21155@srv03.cluenet.de> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> <4F3C2192.4030809@go6.si> <20120216001256.GB21155@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <4F3C4D77.1060608@inex.ie> On 16/02/2012 00:12, Daniel Roesen wrote: > Yesterday. I see 2011-04 more as a vehicle to buy us three more bits to > fix the additional allocation policy mess hopefully in time before folks > need more than a /29, and that's why I don't oppose it. :-) If the HD ratio requirements need to be changed, they can be changed - but it ought to be done separately to this proposal. Let's not create a messy workaround for a different problem. Nick From jan at go6.si Thu Feb 16 09:57:50 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:57:50 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <20120216001256.GB21155@srv03.cluenet.de> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> <4F3C2192.4030809@go6.si> <20120216001256.GB21155@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <4F3CC50E.5060309@go6.si> On 2/16/12 1:12 AM, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:20:18PM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: >>> The problem is that the "additional allocation" policy is far more >>> draconian than the "initial allocation" policy. >>> >>> HD ratio doesn't matter for the initial alloc, but for any >>> additional alloc. >> >> What I read here is that probably we'll have to revise additional alloc >> policy part when we are done with 2011-04, am I right? > > Yesterday. I see 2011-04 more as a vehicle to buy us three more bits to > fix the additional allocation policy mess hopefully in time before folks > need more than a /29, and that's why I don't oppose it. :-) +1 Cheers, Jan From jan at go6.si Thu Feb 16 10:00:19 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:00:19 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <4F3C4D77.1060608@inex.ie> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> <4F3C2192.4030809@go6.si> <20120216001256.GB21155@srv03.cluenet.de> <4F3C4D77.1060608@inex.ie> Message-ID: <4F3CC5A3.5050803@go6.si> On 2/16/12 1:27 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 16/02/2012 00:12, Daniel Roesen wrote: >> Yesterday. I see 2011-04 more as a vehicle to buy us three more bits to >> fix the additional allocation policy mess hopefully in time before folks >> need more than a /29, and that's why I don't oppose it. :-) > > If the HD ratio requirements need to be changed, they can be changed - but > it ought to be done separately to this proposal. Let's not create a messy > workaround for a different problem. Totally agree. Who's interested in working on this separate policy change proposal? We can meet in Ljubljana RIPE meeting in April and see how we can proceed. Cheers, Jan From tbb at ines.ro Thu Feb 16 16:08:00 2012 From: tbb at ines.ro (Tiberiu Ungureanu) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:08:00 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <4F3C36B3.8030405@go6.si> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> <1329342190.31355.51.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> <4F3C36B3.8030405@go6.si> Message-ID: <1329404880.17644.7.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 23:50 +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > On 2/15/12 10:43 PM, Tiberiu Ungureanu wrote: > > Ok, I feel this is troll-feeding, but I'll bite: From what you say, I > > understand that you are dissatisfied with the "_additional_ allocation" > > policy. Why are you trying to change the "_initial_ allocation" policy > > then? If there's a problem with additional allocation policy, fix that, > > don't break this one. > > Hi, > > I don't really understand this comment. Reading the comments on the list I feel I was misunderstood, so here is an attempt to clarify my position: I do NOT oppose 2011-04, on the contrary. I fully support initial allocation of /29. In the subsequent emails on this list, there were voices that said "those who already got /32, under the new policy can only get up to /29 and need to use the hd-ratio policy to get more, while the ones that don't already have ipv6 space have an easier task to get more than /29 on the initial alloc, as they are not restricted by the hd-ratio rule". My position on this is "if you don't like the hd-ratio rule, submit a proposition regarding that policy, and we will be glad to discuss it". Therefore, I would want to see the initial allocation policy changed to allow /29 without justification, but i would not want to see loopholes allowing users that already have a /32 to get more than /29 without being subjected to the hd-ratio policy. I hope that makes it clear where I stand. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From gert at space.net Thu Feb 16 20:37:47 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:37:47 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <4F3CC5A3.5050803@go6.si> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> <4F3C2192.4030809@go6.si> <20120216001256.GB21155@srv03.cluenet.de> <4F3C4D77.1060608@inex.ie> <4F3CC5A3.5050803@go6.si> Message-ID: <20120216193747.GH7742@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:00:19AM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > Totally agree. Who's interested in working on this separate policy > change proposal? We can meet in Ljubljana RIPE meeting in April and see > how we can proceed. I have it from a well-informed source that the Address Policy WG will meet in April, in Ljubljana ;-) - and so far, our agend a looks fairly light. Shall we put "revisit additional allocation policy" on it...? Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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 dr at cluenet.de Thu Feb 16 22:18:47 2012 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:18:47 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <20120216193747.GH7742@Space.Net> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> <4F3C2192.4030809@go6.si> <20120216001256.GB21155@srv03.cluenet.de> <4F3C4D77.1060608@inex.ie> <4F3CC5A3.5050803@go6.si> <20120216193747.GH7742@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20120216211847.GA11217@srv03.cluenet.de> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 08:37:47PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > I have it from a well-informed source that the Address Policy WG will > meet in April, in Ljubljana ;-) - and so far, our agend a looks fairly > light. > > Shall we put "revisit additional allocation policy" on it...? Actually I would prefer to revisit it here. Not everyone has the opportunity to travel around. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From gert at space.net Thu Feb 16 22:58:26 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:58:26 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] revisit additional allocation policy (was: 2011-04 New Draft Document Published) In-Reply-To: <20120216211847.GA11217@srv03.cluenet.de> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> <4F3C2192.4030809@go6.si> <20120216001256.GB21155@srv03.cluenet.de> <4F3C4D77.1060608@inex.ie> <4F3CC5A3.5050803@go6.si> <20120216193747.GH7742@Space.Net> <20120216211847.GA11217@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <20120216215826.GI7742@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:18:47PM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 08:37:47PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > > I have it from a well-informed source that the Address Policy WG will > > meet in April, in Ljubljana ;-) - and so far, our agend a looks fairly > > light. > > > > Shall we put "revisit additional allocation policy" on it...? > > Actually I would prefer to revisit it here. Not everyone has the > opportunity to travel around. Well, you know that we don't do decisions at RIPE meetings, but everything needs to be visible on the list, and go through the formal process. The meetings have the advance that feedback "from the working group" is coming in more quickly, and to get a feel for the direction something should be taken is easier - and you don't need to travel there to take part, as the remote participation facilities usually work quite well. Anyway, feel free to start the discussion here, ideally by coming up with something specific how things should look like (like "everything stays as it is, but HD ratio changed to 0.92" or "abandon HD ratio, replace by a new formula, calculated like this: ..."). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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 jan at go6.si Fri Feb 17 09:21:10 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:21:10 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <20120216193747.GH7742@Space.Net> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> <4F3C2192.4030809@go6.si> <20120216001256.GB21155@srv03.cluenet.de> <4F3C4D77.1060608@inex.ie> <4F3CC5A3.5050803@go6.si> <20120216193747.GH7742@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4F3E0DF6.2090307@go6.si> On 2/16/12 8:37 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:00:19AM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: >> Totally agree. Who's interested in working on this separate policy >> change proposal? We can meet in Ljubljana RIPE meeting in April and see >> how we can proceed. > > I have it from a well-informed source that the Address Policy WG will > meet in April, in Ljubljana ;-) - and so far, our agend a looks fairly > light. > > Shall we put "revisit additional allocation policy" on it...? Hi, Probably. Can we start a discussion here in which direction the community feels to go with the changes? Change HD ratio? Remove it and not use it at all? Introduce something else? Suggestions? Cheers, Jan From gert at space.net Fri Feb 17 13:29:39 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:29:39 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] revisit additional allocation policy (was: 2011-04 New Draft Document Published) In-Reply-To: <4F3E0DF6.2090307@go6.si> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> <4F3C2192.4030809@go6.si> <20120216001256.GB21155@srv03.cluenet.de> <4F3C4D77.1060608@inex.ie> <4F3CC5A3.5050803@go6.si> <20120216193747.GH7742@Space.Net> <4F3E0DF6.2090307@go6.si> Message-ID: <20120217122939.GP7742@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 09:21:10AM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > Can we start a discussion here in which direction the community feels to > go with the changes? Change HD ratio? Remove it and not use it at all? > Introduce something else? Fine with that, but then *please* change the subject, as soon as the discussion is not related to 2011-04 anymore. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: From emadaio at ripe.net Fri Feb 17 15:05:59 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:05:59 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Draft Document will be produced (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The discussion period for the proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has ended. With the agreement of the Address Policy WG Chairs, the proposer decided to move the proposal to the Review Phase. The RIPE NCC will also conduct and publish an impact analysis about the proposal, as per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE". This documentation will now be prepared for review. We will publish the documents shortly and we will make an announcement. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From chrish at consol.net Tue Feb 21 11:22:31 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (chrish at consol.net) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:22:31 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Draft Document will be produced (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <201202171406.q1HE6LnK025666@gw1.consol.de> References: <201202171406.q1HE6LnK025666@gw1.consol.de> Message-ID: <4F437067.8020607@consol.net> Hi! On 02/17/2012 03:05 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > With the agreement of the Address Policy WG Chairs, the proposer > decided to move the proposal to the Review Phase. The RIPE NCC will Just to avoid any oversight: it is version 2 which is moved to the review phase, which lacks consensus. Regards, Chris From gert at space.net Tue Feb 21 11:30:08 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:30:08 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Draft Document will be produced (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <4F437067.8020607@consol.net> References: <201202171406.q1HE6LnK025666@gw1.consol.de> <4F437067.8020607@consol.net> Message-ID: <20120221103008.GT84425@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:22:31AM +0100, chrish at consol.net wrote: > On 02/17/2012 03:05 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > > With the agreement of the Address Policy WG Chairs, the proposer > > decided to move the proposal to the Review Phase. The RIPE NCC will > > Just to avoid any oversight: it is version 2 which is moved to the > review phase, which lacks consensus. There was more than enough support from the community to move to review phase. To repeat the important detail: consensus in the RIPE PDP does not have to be unanimous. The WG chairs judge whether consensus has been reached, and there is an appeals process in case the WG chairs err in their decision. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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 kleknes at ripe.net Wed Feb 22 09:51:52 2012 From: kleknes at ripe.net (Kjell Leknes) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:51:52 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2011-02: "Removal of Multihomed Requirement for IPv6 PI" Implemented Message-ID: <4F44ACA8.3060406@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-02, "Removal of Multihomed Requirement for IPv6 PI", has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now ready to accept requests for IPv6 PI assignments without multihoming being a requirement. The full proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 The revised version of the IPv6 policy was published on 23 January 2012: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545 The new request form template for IPv6 PI assignments can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-546/ The new supporting notes can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-547/ Kind regards --- Kjell Leknes RIPE NCC From Richard.Krogh at grontmij.dk Wed Feb 22 14:27:57 2012 From: Richard.Krogh at grontmij.dk (Richard Krogh (RKG)) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:27:57 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Multihomed demand for ISP Message-ID: <5FC084A6180C1646B1C6A0E06687A2E12C93627976@dkcphmbxfi01.dk.carlbro.net> Hi. Not shure if I am writing in the correct forum, but here goes: My company is recognized as an ISP, caused by our lease/reservation of RIPE based IP addresses. Question: Is it a ripe-demand that ISPs should have multihomed lines to their equipment or is single line OK? (beware that I am not talking of performance or the company's safety, only about what demands RIPE require). Thanks in advance. Richard Krogh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erik at bais.name Wed Feb 22 16:16:26 2012 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:16:26 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Multihomed demand for ISP In-Reply-To: <5FC084A6180C1646B1C6A0E06687A2E12C93627976@dkcphmbxfi01.dk.carlbro.net> References: <5FC084A6180C1646B1C6A0E06687A2E12C93627976@dkcphmbxfi01.dk.carlbro.net> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D544D@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Richard, It is not required to even have your own network. You could have some other network provider advertise your prefix and have them do the routing .. Is if recommended to have a network which is multi-homed .. YES.. but it is not required to run the LIR PA space on your own network. Being a LIR doesn't make one an ISP... A LIR is just a registration office for IP addresses. We run the LIR PA IP space of a city for instance on our network in the Netherlands. And the prefixes of another LIR ISP that decided not to run their own network anymore. In both cases they rely on our network to keep it up and running for them. So they don't have to. Does that help ? Regards, Erik Bais Erik Bais | A2B Internet BV | +31 299 707 115 ( Office ) | ebais at a2b-internet.com | From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Richard Krogh (RKG) Sent: woensdag 22 februari 2012 14:28 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Multihomed demand for ISP Hi. Not shure if I am writing in the correct forum, but here goes: My company is recognized as an ISP, caused by our lease/reservation of RIPE based IP addresses. Question: Is it a ripe-demand that ISPs should have multihomed lines to their equipment or is single line OK? (beware that I am not talking of performance or the company's safety, only about what demands RIPE require). Thanks in advance. Richard Krogh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Richard.Krogh at grontmij.dk Thu Feb 23 09:37:05 2012 From: Richard.Krogh at grontmij.dk (Richard Krogh (RKG)) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:37:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Multihomed demand for ISP In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D544D@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <5FC084A6180C1646B1C6A0E06687A2E12C93627976@dkcphmbxfi01.dk.carlbro.net> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D544D@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <5FC084A6180C1646B1C6A0E06687A2E12C93627A18@dkcphmbxfi01.dk.carlbro.net> Thank you very much for the reply. Just what I needed. Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards Richard Krogh IT Infrastructure Technical Consultant _______________________________ Grontmij A/S Granskoven 8 DK-2600 Glostrup Denmark T + 45 4348 4744 M + 45 2723 4744 F + 45 4348 6789 E Richard.Krogh at grontmij.dk W www.grontmij.dk The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From: Erik Bais [mailto:erik at bais.name] Sent: 22. februar 2012 16:16 To: Richard Krogh (RKG); address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: RE: Multihomed demand for ISP Hi Richard, It is not required to even have your own network. You could have some other network provider advertise your prefix and have them do the routing .. Is if recommended to have a network which is multi-homed .. YES.. but it is not required to run the LIR PA space on your own network. Being a LIR doesn't make one an ISP... A LIR is just a registration office for IP addresses. We run the LIR PA IP space of a city for instance on our network in the Netherlands. And the prefixes of another LIR ISP that decided not to run their own network anymore. In both cases they rely on our network to keep it up and running for them. So they don't have to. Does that help ? Regards, Erik Bais Erik Bais | A2B Internet BV | +31 299 707 115 ( Office ) | ebais at a2b-internet.com | From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Richard Krogh (RKG) Sent: woensdag 22 februari 2012 14:28 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Multihomed demand for ISP Hi. Not shure if I am writing in the correct forum, but here goes: My company is recognized as an ISP, caused by our lease/reservation of RIPE based IP addresses. Question: Is it a ripe-demand that ISPs should have multihomed lines to their equipment or is single line OK? (beware that I am not talking of performance or the company's safety, only about what demands RIPE require). Thanks in advance. Richard Krogh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Mon Feb 27 13:55:51 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:55:51 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] (draft) Minutes from RIPE 63 Message-ID: <20120227125551.GJ84425@Space.Net> Hi APWG, the draft minutes from RIPE 63 are now online: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ap/minutes/minutes-from-ripe-63 please let us know if something is missing or not correct. The minutes have been reviewed, but they are quite long and detailed, and mistakes happen. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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 dr at cluenet.de Mon Feb 27 19:48:26 2012 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:48:26 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <20120216001256.GB21155@srv03.cluenet.de> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> <4F3C2192.4030809@go6.si> <20120216001256.GB21155@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <20120227184826.GA16426@srv03.cluenet.de> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 01:12:56AM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:20:18PM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > >> The problem is that the "additional allocation" policy is far more > >> draconian than the "initial allocation" policy. > >> > >> HD ratio doesn't matter for the initial alloc, but for any > >> additional alloc. > > > > What I read here is that probably we'll have to revise additional alloc > > policy part when we are done with 2011-04, am I right? > > Yesterday. I see 2011-04 more as a vehicle to buy us three more bits to > fix the additional allocation policy mess hopefully in time before folks > need more than a /29, and that's why I don't oppose it. :-) BTW, a proposal was recently brought forward in ARIN-land, trying to fix similar IPv6 subsequent allocation policy mess: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-November/023758.html https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2012_2.html (their criteria for another allocation is "75% or more of their total address space, or more than 90% of any serving site" being utilized) Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From gert at space.net Mon Feb 27 22:20:48 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:20:48 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <20120227184826.GA16426@srv03.cluenet.de> References: <4F3BD016.4070003@netcologne.de> <1329320879.31355.47.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> <20120215201002.GA28426@srv03.cluenet.de> <4F3C2192.4030809@go6.si> <20120216001256.GB21155@srv03.cluenet.de> <20120227184826.GA16426@srv03.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <20120227212048.GT84425@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 07:48:26PM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote: > (their criteria for another allocation is "75% or more of their total > address space, or more than 90% of any serving site" being utilized) How does "90% of any serving site" work out? You hand out all your space in chunks of /40s, manage to actually fill a single one of them with 250 /48s to end users (while everything else is very lightly used), and get a new allocation? That would be very relaxed indeed. 75%, on the other hand, is actually much *more strict* than the current HD ratio - which requires an utilization of 36% for a /32 (RIPE-545, appendix A) going down to 14% for a /10. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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 gleb at google.com Tue Feb 28 13:13:52 2012 From: gleb at google.com (Gleb Katenin) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:13:52 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Just wanted to say a few words in support of the proposal 2011-04. For companies like ours it makes perfect sense due to the fact that they often have multiple separate networks run by different people (user-facing, management, corporate and so on). ARIN has a policy to meet requirements of multiple discrete networks (https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six_11) while RIPE has no provision for that. In fact, RIPE policy proposal 2011-04 was already offered to us as a solution for problem Google Corp network is currently facing. We have aggressive plans to roll out IPv6 in EMEA offices?but our allocation request was turned down (see email below) due to the fact that initial /32 has been already allocated to us. In reality, however, it was allocated to another entity withing?company which is not willing to share.?We as an organization currently see the policy proposal 2011-04 as a way out and would very much like to support it. Please consider this as a "yes" vote. Thank you! Gleb > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:39 PM, RIPE NCC Staff wrote: >> >> Hi Gleb, >> >> Thank you for your email. >> >> The policies in the RIPE region differ from the APNIC ones, so what you >> might >> have received there is not per se what you will receive here. :) >> >> The IPv6 policy procures one initial IPv6 allocation per LIR to deploy >> IPv6 >> on the network. >> >> An LIR can request a subsequent allocation when they have reached an >> HD-ratio >> value of 0.94. >> >> >> >> There is no support in the policy at the moment for multiple /32 >> allocations >> for administrative ease. >> >> The options you do have are as follows: >> >> -support the current policy proposal 2011-04 and then get a larger >> allocation >> ?for the ie.google registry when the proposal is implemented: >> >> >> >> -split the current /32 allocation into two different prefixes. This is >> allowed >> ?by the current policy, after the community decided to remove the >> limitations >> ?that the allocation had to be announced as one single prefix. >> >> ?You can add several maintainers to the current /32 allocation using the >> ?LIR portal Object Editor: >> >> ? >> >> Please let me know if you have any further questions about the IPv6 policy >> and what your current options are. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Gerardo Viviers >> RIPE NCC >> Registration Services >> >> >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:47:19 +0100, Gleb Katenin wrote: >> > Dear Henriette, >> > >> > Thanks for your detailed answer! The allocation you've mentioned >> > belongs to Google user-facing production network (AS15169) and is >> > protected by MNT-GOOG-PROD object. What we are currently requesting >> > is /32 allocation for internal corporate network (AS41264), our >> > objects are protected by MNT-GOOG-CORP. For instance, by APNIC we have >> > following allocations: >> > >> > ? - 2404:6800::/32 ? ?for Prod network >> > ? - 2401:fa00::/32 ? ? for Corp network >> > >> > Google Prod and Corp networks are logically and physically >> > separate and maintained by different people. For this reason we keep >> > network allocations separate as well. Please kindly advise how >> > to proceed with our RIPE request further. >> > > > -- > Best regards, > > Gleb Katenin > Network Engineer > Tel. +41 44 668-1072 > > Google?Switzerland GmbH > Brandschenkestrasse 110, 8002 Zurich > Registration No. CH-020.4.028.116-1 > From chrish at consol.net Tue Feb 28 13:37:05 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (chrish at consol.net) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:37:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F4CCA71.8030708@consol.net> hi! On 02/28/2012 01:13 PM, Gleb Katenin wrote: > request was turned down (see email below) due to the fact that initial > /32 has been already allocated to us. In reality, however, it was > allocated to another entity withing company which is not willing to though i believe internal administrative issues should not be solved by demands against community policies, i'm happy for you that the new policy might help you - even if it's just collateral. but actually, as i read your mail, i was wondering how much v4 address space is currently allocated to you (and by that i mean "all of you", no matter how your corporate group is assembled or how it's distributed among countries or RIRs)? regards, Chris From gleb at google.com Tue Feb 28 14:57:21 2012 From: gleb at google.com (Gleb Katenin) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:57:21 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <4F4CCA71.8030708@consol.net> References: <4F4CCA71.8030708@consol.net> Message-ID: Hi Chris, Given corporate network is RFC1918-based, public IPv4 address space requirements are minimal. I would expect it to be AS36384 (in Americas), AS41264 (in EMEA) and AS45566 (in APAC) -originated routes combined. In contrast, production (user-facing) network is obviously built on public addresses. The number of routes originated from AS15169 (http://rs2.swissix.ch/cgi-bin/bgplg?cmd=show+ip+bgp+source-as&req=15169) would give you a good idea of how much address space it uses. Cheers, --gleb On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:37 PM, wrote: > hi! > > On 02/28/2012 01:13 PM, Gleb Katenin wrote: >> request was turned down (see email below) due to the fact that initial >> /32 has been already allocated to us. In reality, however, it was >> allocated to another entity withing company which is not willing to > > though i believe internal administrative issues should not be solved by demands against community policies, i'm happy for you that the new policy might help you - even if it's just collateral. > > but actually, as i read your mail, i was wondering how much v4 address space is currently allocated to you (and by that i mean "all of you", no matter how your corporate group is assembled or how it's distributed among countries or RIRs)? > > regards, > > ? ? ? ?Chris From chrish at consol.net Tue Feb 28 15:42:17 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (Chris) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:42:17 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: <4F4CCA71.8030708@consol.net> Message-ID: <4F4CE7C9.4080706@consol.net> hi! > requirements are minimal. I would expect it to be AS36384 (in > Americas), AS41264 (in EMEA) and AS45566 (in APAC) -originated routes [...] thanx! just in case it might be of interest to you, too - in return the summary of what i was interested in: funny: at least ris tells me AS36384 doesn't announce anything... AS41264 currently announces a total of /23. AS45566 currently announces a single /24. > AS15169 (http://rs2.swissix.ch/cgi-bin/bgplg?cmd=show+ip+bgp+source-as&req=15169) that would be: 8.8.4.0/24 8.8.8.0/24 64.15.112.0/20 64.233.160.0/19 66.102.0.0/20 66.249.64.0/19 70.32.128.0/19 72.14.192.0/18 74.125.0.0/16 108.59.80.0/20 108.170.192.0/18 113.197.105.0/24 173.194.0.0/16 173.255.112.0/20 193.142.125.0/24 207.223.160.0/20 208.65.152.0/22 208.117.224.0/19 209.85.128.0/17 216.58.192.0/19 216.239.32.0/19 if i counted correctly, that's a total of /14, /20, /21, /23, /24. if that's really all, at least compared to the top ten allocatees this is actually a tiny allocation... :) regards, Chris From jan at go6.si Wed Feb 29 00:33:20 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:33:20 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F4D6440.6010103@go6.si> On 2/28/12 1:13 PM, Gleb Katenin wrote: >We as an organization currently see the policy proposal 2011-04 > as a way out and would very much like to support it. Please consider > this as a "yes" vote. Thank you! Glad to hear ;) Cheers, Jan