From ripe-ml-2003 at ssd.axu.tm Tue Aug 5 13:21:21 2003 From: ripe-ml-2003 at ssd.axu.tm (Aleksi Suhonen) Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:21:21 +0300 Subject: Regarding the IPv6 Request Form for Internet Exchange Points Message-ID: <20030805112122.02D171A21D@tikka.axu.tm> Hello, The robot at hostmaster@ seems to mistake the IPv6 form for IXPs as an IPv4 form? When you others on this list applied for your address space, did you just send it directly as NO AUTO? And additionally, as there is no published IPv4 procedure for exchanges, how have you handled this situation? (Any other words of experience that might help me? ;-) -- Aleksi Suhonen / +358 45 6702048 TREX Tampere Region Exchange Oy www.trextampereregionexchange.fi From ripe-ml-2003 at ssd.axu.tm Fri Aug 8 11:14:04 2003 From: ripe-ml-2003 at ssd.axu.tm (Aleksi Suhonen) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:14:04 +0300 Subject: Regarding the IPv6 Request Form for Internet Exchange Points In-Reply-To: <20030805112122.02D171A21D@tikka.axu.tm> Message-ID: <20030808091405.BC1DE1A21D@tikka.axu.tm> Hello, Quote from Aleksi Suhonen: } And additionally, as there is no published IPv4 procedure for } exchanges, how have you handled this situation? I gather that the NCC would like to assign a /27 or a /26 as the peering mesh of a startup exchange point unless we claim that in two years we will grow to the size other exchanges have taken five or ten years to grow to... This doesn't seem right to me. -- Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Tampere Region Exchange Oy From leo at ripe.net Mon Aug 11 08:41:43 2003 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:41:43 +0200 Subject: Regarding the IPv6 Request Form for Internet Exchange Points In-Reply-To: <20030808091405.BC1DE1A21D@tikka.axu.tm> References: <20030805112122.02D171A21D@tikka.axu.tm> <20030808091405.BC1DE1A21D@tikka.axu.tm> Message-ID: Hi Aleksi, I'm sorry the robot is not functioning correctly for IPv6 IXP requests. Work to replace the system is almost complete. You mentioned the size of address space that can be assigned to an IXP. The current policy only allows us to assign address space to meet a network's expected needs over a period of two years: "Assignment criteria for both kinds of address space will be exactly identical with regards to the amount of address space assigned, the registration requirements, etc. This also implies that assigning PI space prefixes longer than 24 bits is perfectly acceptable if the request does not merit 8 bits of address space to be assigned." "Provider Independent versus Provider Aggregatable Address Space" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/pi-pa.html#toc6 The PI Task Force has been reviewing the policy for assigning portable address space. I have just posted a summary of the PI Task Force's recent discussions on the Address Policy WG mailing list. This may be of interest. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/msg00030.ht ml Regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager From fm at st-kilda.org Tue Aug 12 18:05:02 2003 From: fm at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:05:02 +0100 Subject: EIX WG - Agenda Call for RIPE 46 Message-ID: Greetings The format is changing slightly - we are going to have two sessions one with IXP update presentations similar to the Euro-IX ones just focussing on growth, new technology, services etc aimed at ISPs primarily. To speed the updates we want to have a single laptop with everyone's presentation in advance so we can rattle through. Time limit will be circa 3 mins for previous presenters and 5 for new presentations. If you would like to present please send a note to myself & Mike Hughes by August 27th. We will try to take late comers but there will only be the one session. The update should focus on background, growth and recent developments but should not include case studies in upgrades etc, they should be in the second session. Please send copies of your presentation to Mike and myself by September 1st so we can get them organised in time. The second session is where the " we did this and it was not fun " or "here are some interesting ideas", etc. items can go rather than being in the update presentation. The second session has a few preliminary items and more will be welcome. Again if possible we would like the presentations by September 1st so we can have a single laptop. Thanks Fearghas EIX-WG RIPE 46 Wednesday 3 September 2003 St Johns II Krasnapolsky Hotel Session One 11:00-12:30 0 Scribe Agenda Bashing 1 IXP presentations Lunch Break Session Two 14:00-15:30 2 Presentions Euro-IX update Regulatory Implications of Recent EU Directives for IXP Operators - Keith Mitchell Hosting a .root server - 3 short presentations from the root operators in the RIPE region explaining what they are looking for in a location - NetNOD, ISC & RIPE-NCC An overview of the PCH IXP database - Bill Woodcock 3 RIPE Address Policy & NCC-Sevices issues 4 AOCB From andrei at ripe.net Thu Aug 28 16:37:49 2003 From: andrei at ripe.net (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:37:49 +0200 Subject: K-anycast future deployment plans Message-ID: <3F4E13BD.9050800@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, As you may know there will be two presentations related to K-anycast project at the RIPE meeting: a short one at the eix-wg outlining RIPE NCC's plans for future anycast deployment and hosting requirements, and one at the dn*-wg discussing the current technical setup of K and its operation. We also though it would be useful to have a separate meeting inviting those who has interest in hosting an instance of K, to discuss NCC's deployment plans, proposed setup and requirements in more detail and collect your feedback. We booked the Dam Room (first floor) for the meeting for Wednesday, 3.09, 17.30-18.30. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky CTO, RIPE NCC