From jan at go6.si Mon Oct 17 15:39:17 2016 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz - Go6) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:39:17 +0200 Subject: [bcop] BCOP TF meeting in Madrid (RIPE73) Message-ID: <8d97f61f-ed93-f10b-5cea-6fb370488a53@go6.si> Dear BCOP community, We'll meet again in Madrid during the RIPE73 week, as usually on Monday after the plenary sessions are over. We have some new updates on the work that is being done, but we would like to ask also for some updates from all authors that are working on their documents for update and also for new ideas for BCOP documents. Please, be quick with suggestions as we have to publish the agenda soon. Cheers and thnx, Benno and Jan From robachevsky at isoc.org Tue Oct 18 11:44:03 2016 From: robachevsky at isoc.org (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:44:03 +0200 Subject: [bcop] Final draft of the MANRS BCOP document Message-ID: Hi, The MANRS BCOP document is almost ready! Here it is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZBIvtBQ-Fc4RZKXnOpEQIGJfxPr21brqqiYVRSahN6o It has been reviewed by several MANRS participating operators and the MANRS BCOP team. Sander Steffann took the editorial pen at the final stage of its production, added missing content and brushed it up. There is still room for improvement - and the review and feedback from this community will be very much appreciated. Please send your comments and suggestions. During RIP73 next week this document will be also discussed at the BCOP TF on Monday. If you plan to be at RIPE73, please join this session. We hope to finalize this work (this phase, at least) soon after RIPE73 and reference it from the BCOP repository. Regards, Andrei, on behalf of the MANRS BCOP team From sander at steffann.nl Tue Oct 18 11:58:20 2016 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:58:20 +0200 Subject: [bcop] Final draft of the MANRS BCOP document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74AD47F8-DCBC-4FE5-9814-91A8BE201261@steffann.nl> Hi Andrei and list, > The MANRS BCOP document is almost ready! > > Here it is: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZBIvtBQ-Fc4RZKXnOpEQIGJfxPr21brqqiYVRSahN6o > > It has been reviewed by several MANRS participating operators and the > MANRS BCOP team. Sander Steffann took the editorial pen at the final > stage of its production, added missing content and brushed it up. > > There is still room for improvement - and the review and feedback from > this community will be very much appreciated. Please send your comments > and suggestions. As I was the last person editing the text, let me also be the first one to ask for input :) What is now still missing is content for the sections: - 4.1.1.1.2. Creating a new maintainer in the APNIC IRR - 4.1.2. Maintaining Contact Information in Regional Internet Registries (RIRs): LACNIC Because I don't have access to the My APNIC Portal and the LACNIC Portal I couldn't describe the correct steps for these sections. If anybody has access to those portals and can describe the steps and possibly make some screenshots that would be great! Cheers, Sander -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From Steve.Nash at theiet.org Thu Oct 20 12:07:42 2016 From: Steve.Nash at theiet.org (Steve Nash) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:07:42 +0100 Subject: [bcop] BCOP TF meeting in Madrid (RIPE73) In-Reply-To: <8d97f61f-ed93-f10b-5cea-6fb370488a53@go6.si> References: <8d97f61f-ed93-f10b-5cea-6fb370488a53@go6.si> Message-ID: <40b7f6fd-64e6-7150-bcfd-bef4e711b860@theiet.org> It would be useful to know what documents are being worked on. If there is a repository I have lost track of where it is. I see MANRS mentioned on the mailing list and some idea of a DNS document, but not for some time. Should anti-spoofing be a separate BCOP doc, outside of MANRS, since it is not exclusively about Routing Security? Most operators use flow reporting to monitor their networks for many functions including for discussion with their peers. Should flow record generation capability be a factor in choice of router platform? Is this a BCOP? Regards Steve (Arbor) On 17/10/2016 14:39, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote: > Dear BCOP community, > > We'll meet again in Madrid during the RIPE73 week, as usually on > Monday after the plenary sessions are over. > > We have some new updates on the work that is being done, but we would > like to ask also for some updates from all authors that are working on > their documents for update and also for new ideas for BCOP documents. > > Please, be quick with suggestions as we have to publish the agenda soon. > > Cheers and thnx, Benno and Jan > > From sander at steffann.nl Wed Oct 26 15:11:26 2016 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:11:26 +0200 Subject: [bcop] IPv4 statement Message-ID: <109E0A0D-3407-4941-9B0E-61287E7E2A5F@steffann.nl> Hi, At the last RIPE meeting I tried to get community consensus on a statement to make it clear what the best way is to use the last remaining IPv4 addresses. Consensus in the plenary failed and the feedback I got was that we needed something stronger. And then I forgot about it... So far, I have come up with the following statement: """ It is important to realise that there isn't any IPv4 space left; the RIPE NCC has a small reserve to allow new members to get a /22 so they can start up a business, to bootstrap and to communicate with the legacy Internet. But this is not something anybody can build their future on. The only way to survive in the future is to implement IPv6 from the start. It is not sustainable to build an IPv4-only network anymore. The best current operational practice is to build IPv6 networks and have translation mechanisms to IPv4, and that is the only sustainable way forward. Anything else will require increasing investments in a declining technology. """ I think it's not good enough, but I lack inspiration to make it better. I would appreciate help from this task force. Cheers, Sander -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2084 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nathalie at ripe.net Mon Oct 31 13:15:12 2016 From: nathalie at ripe.net (Nathalie Trenaman) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:15:12 +0100 Subject: [bcop] IPv4 statement In-Reply-To: <109E0A0D-3407-4941-9B0E-61287E7E2A5F@steffann.nl> References: <109E0A0D-3407-4941-9B0E-61287E7E2A5F@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <8EDFCEC1-8F94-47A0-B731-3182D3B4AFA7@ripe.net> Hi Sander, > On 26 Oct 2016, at 15:11, Sander Steffann wrote: > > Hi, > > At the last RIPE meeting I tried to get community consensus on a statement to make it clear what the best way is to use the last remaining IPv4 addresses. Consensus in the plenary failed and the feedback I got was that we needed something stronger. And then I forgot about it... > > So far, I have come up with the following statement: > > """ > It is important to realise that there isn't any IPv4 space left; the RIPE NCC has a small reserve to allow new members to get a /22 so they can start up a business, to bootstrap and to communicate with the legacy Internet. But this is not something anybody can build their future on. The only way to survive in the future is to implement IPv6 from the start. It is not sustainable to build an IPv4-only network anymore. The best current operational practice is to build IPv6 networks and have translation mechanisms to IPv4, and that is the only sustainable way forward. Anything else will require increasing investments in a declining technology. > """ > > I think it's not good enough, but I lack inspiration to make it better. I would appreciate help from this task force. Thanks, it looks ok to me, two things I would change are: "translation mechanisms? to "transitioning mechanisms?, in order to make it more generic. Also, I?m not sure about the last phrase. "Anything else will require increasing investments in a declining technology.? It?s not a declining technology, but a legacy technology. Just my quick 2 cents? Nathalie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Mon Oct 31 13:25:52 2016 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:25:52 +0100 Subject: [bcop] IPv4 statement In-Reply-To: <8EDFCEC1-8F94-47A0-B731-3182D3B4AFA7@ripe.net> References: <109E0A0D-3407-4941-9B0E-61287E7E2A5F@steffann.nl> <8EDFCEC1-8F94-47A0-B731-3182D3B4AFA7@ripe.net> Message-ID: If we want to be more accurate and correct, we should use: ?transition and coexistence? This is also the way at IETF are officially described. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: BCOP en nombre de Nathalie Trenaman Responder a: Fecha: lunes, 31 de octubre de 2016, 13:15 Para: Sander Steffann CC: bcop Asunto: Re: [bcop] IPv4 statement Hi Sander, On 26 Oct 2016, at 15:11, Sander Steffann wrote: Hi, At the last RIPE meeting I tried to get community consensus on a statement to make it clear what the best way is to use the last remaining IPv4 addresses. Consensus in the plenary failed and the feedback I got was that we needed something stronger. And then I forgot about it... So far, I have come up with the following statement: """ It is important to realise that there isn't any IPv4 space left; the RIPE NCC has a small reserve to allow new members to get a /22 so they can start up a business, to bootstrap and to communicate with the legacy Internet. But this is not something anybody can build their future on. The only way to survive in the future is to implement IPv6 from the start. It is not sustainable to build an IPv4-only network anymore. The best current operational practice is to build IPv6 networks and have translation mechanisms to IPv4, and that is the only sustainable way forward. Anything else will require increasing investments in a declining technology. """ I think it's not good enough, but I lack inspiration to make it better. I would appreciate help from this task force. Thanks, it looks ok to me, two things I would change are: "translation mechanisms? to "transitioning mechanisms?, in order to make it more generic. Also, I?m not sure about the last phrase. "Anything else will require increasing investments in a declining technology.? It?s not a declining technology, but a legacy technology. Just my quick 2 cents? Nathalie ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From robachevsky at isoc.org Mon Oct 31 17:38:20 2016 From: robachevsky at isoc.org (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:38:20 +0100 Subject: [bcop] Last Call: MANRS BCOP document Message-ID: Hi, As agreed at the RIPE BCOP TF meeting last week, here is a last call for the review of the MANRS BCOP document. This last call ends on November 28, 2016. The document is available here: http://tinyurl.com/jlulren Regards, Andrei