From matjaz.straus at arnes.si Fri Mar 23 18:03:14 2012 From: matjaz.straus at arnes.si (=?utf-8?Q?Matja=C5=BE_Straus_Isteni=C4=8D?=) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:03:14 +0100 Subject: [eix-wg] "advertise to all" BGP community Message-ID: <6764343B-0984-4976-96AC-6E9BA275101A@arnes.si> Dear group, we are putting a couple of Bird route servers with an IXP manager front-end to Slovenian internet exchange (SIX). At route servers, we are using the well known model for BGP communities: block announcement of a route to a certain peer 0:peer-as announcement of a route to a certain peer ix-as:peer-as block announcement of a route to all peers 0:ix-as announcement of a route to all peers ix-as:ix-as How do you handle the announcements with no community set? Do you request that "announcement of a route to all peers" is set in order to announce the prefixes from your IXP route servers? I will appreciate your feedback, thank you. Kind regards, Matja? --- Matja? Straus Isteni?, Arnes http://www.arnes.si Tel: +386 1 4798-877 Fax: +386 1 4798-878 matjaz.straus at arnes.si MS6745-RIPE PGP 490F3B4F 2009-10-21 Fingerprint = 6172 7BF8 B0B7 1F09 47B3 AFA3 0946 1701 490F 3B4F From nick at inex.ie Fri Mar 23 18:15:58 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:15:58 +0000 Subject: [eix-wg] "advertise to all" BGP community In-Reply-To: <6764343B-0984-4976-96AC-6E9BA275101A@arnes.si> References: <6764343B-0984-4976-96AC-6E9BA275101A@arnes.si> Message-ID: <4F6CAFCE.3090503@inex.ie> On 23/03/2012 17:03, Matja? Straus Isteni? wrote: > How do you handle the announcements with no community set? Do you > request that "announcement of a route to all peers" is set in order to > announce the prefixes from your IXP route servers? at least for INEX, we ignore ix-as:ix-as and propagate all prefixes to all route servers clients by default: > % whois -r as43760 > [...] > remarks: - community 43760:43760 is really just a NOP > [...] > % The default BIRD configuration in INEX's IXP Manager implements this policy. Nick From andy at nosignal.org Fri Mar 23 18:16:59 2012 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:16:59 +0000 Subject: [eix-wg] "advertise to all" BGP community In-Reply-To: <6764343B-0984-4976-96AC-6E9BA275101A@arnes.si> References: <6764343B-0984-4976-96AC-6E9BA275101A@arnes.si> Message-ID: <5AF3528D-ACB6-457F-867E-0F2CFBF7F12A@nosignal.org> On 23 Mar 2012, at 17:03, Matja? Straus Isteni? wrote: > we are putting a couple of Bird route servers with an IXP manager front-end to Slovenian internet exchange (SIX). At route servers, we are using the well known model for BGP communities: > > block announcement of a route to a certain peer 0:peer-as > announcement of a route to a certain peer ix-as:peer-as > block announcement of a route to all peers 0:ix-as > announcement of a route to all peers ix-as:ix-as > > How do you handle the announcements with no community set? Do you request that "announcement of a route to all peers" is set in order to announce the prefixes from your IXP route servers? At LONAP, if no community is set, we send to all (duplicate the logic of ix-as:ix-as). Andy From arnold.nipper at de-cix.net Fri Mar 23 19:11:57 2012 From: arnold.nipper at de-cix.net (Arnold Nipper) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 19:11:57 +0100 Subject: [eix-wg] "advertise to all" BGP community In-Reply-To: <5AF3528D-ACB6-457F-867E-0F2CFBF7F12A@nosignal.org> References: <6764343B-0984-4976-96AC-6E9BA275101A@arnes.si> <5AF3528D-ACB6-457F-867E-0F2CFBF7F12A@nosignal.org> Message-ID: <4F6CBCED.1000205@de-cix.net> On 23.03.2012 18:16 Andy Davidson wrote > > On 23 Mar 2012, at 17:03, Matja? Straus Isteni? wrote: > >> we are putting a couple of Bird route servers with an IXP manager front-end to Slovenian internet exchange (SIX). At route servers, we are using the well known model for BGP communities: >> >> block announcement of a route to a certain peer 0:peer-as >> announcement of a route to a certain peer ix-as:peer-as >> block announcement of a route to all peers 0:ix-as >> announcement of a route to all peers ix-as:ix-as >> >> How do you handle the announcements with no community set? Do you request that "announcement of a route to all peers" is set in order to announce the prefixes from your IXP route servers? > > At LONAP, if no community is set, we send to all (duplicate the logic of ix-as:ix-as). > Same at DE-CIX Arnold -- Arnold Nipper e-mail: arnold.nipper at de-cix.net DE-CIX Management GmbH mobile: +49 152 5371 7690 Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Koeln phone: +49 69 1730 902 22 Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa fax: +49 69 4056 2716 Registergericht AG Koeln HRB 51135 http://www.de-cix.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 251 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From harald.michl at univie.ac.at Mon Mar 26 07:25:34 2012 From: harald.michl at univie.ac.at (Harald Michl) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:25:34 +0200 Subject: [eix-wg] "advertise to all" BGP community In-Reply-To: <6764343B-0984-4976-96AC-6E9BA275101A@arnes.si> References: <6764343B-0984-4976-96AC-6E9BA275101A@arnes.si> Message-ID: <4F6FFDCE.8010002@univie.ac.at> Hi Matja?, group, On 23.03.12 18:03, Matja? Straus Isteni? wrote: > Dear group, > > we are putting a couple of Bird route servers with an IXP manager front-end to Slovenian internet exchange (SIX). At route servers, we are using the well known model for BGP communities: > > block announcement of a route to a certain peer 0:peer-as > announcement of a route to a certain peer ix-as:peer-as > block announcement of a route to all peers 0:ix-as > announcement of a route to all peers ix-as:ix-as > > How do you handle the announcements with no community set? While we do not use communities to handle the announcements at VIX I wonder how you handle 32-bit as-numbers? regards, Harald > Do you request that "announcement of a route to all peers" is set in order to announce the prefixes from your IXP route servers? > > I will appreciate your feedback, thank you. > Kind regards, > Matja? > > --- > Matja? Straus Isteni?, Arnes > http://www.arnes.si > > Tel: +386 1 4798-877 > Fax: +386 1 4798-878 > matjaz.straus at arnes.si > MS6745-RIPE > PGP 490F3B4F 2009-10-21 > Fingerprint = 6172 7BF8 B0B7 1F09 47B3 AFA3 0946 1701 490F 3B4F -- Harald Michl Vienna University - ACOnet www.ACO.net - VIX www.VIX.at Universitaetsstrasse 7, A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe Tel: +43 1 4277 - 14078 (Fax: - 9140) HM3550-RIPE From matjaz.straus at arnes.si Tue Mar 27 17:10:41 2012 From: matjaz.straus at arnes.si (=?utf-8?Q?Matja=C5=BE_Straus_Isteni=C4=8D?=) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:10:41 +0200 Subject: [eix-wg] "advertise to all" BGP community In-Reply-To: <4F6FFDCE.8010002@univie.ac.at> References: <6764343B-0984-4976-96AC-6E9BA275101A@arnes.si> <4F6FFDCE.8010002@univie.ac.at> Message-ID: Hi Harald, group, On 26. mar. 2012, at 07:25, Harald Michl wrote: > While we do not use communities to handle the announcements at VIX I > wonder how you handle 32-bit as-numbers? Here, at SIX, we are using extended communities like it was presented by Ondrej at RIPE 63 http://ripe63.ripe.net/presentations/160-BIRD-20111103-OF-RIPE-EIX-RS.pdf > > regards, > Harald Kind regards and thank you all for the feedback. To summarise, most of you do not request that the "advertise-to-all" community is set in order to advertise the prefixes to all peers. "No community" does the same. Matja? From nick at inex.ie Tue Mar 27 17:47:32 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:47:32 +0100 Subject: [eix-wg] "advertise to all" BGP community In-Reply-To: References: <6764343B-0984-4976-96AC-6E9BA275101A@arnes.si> <4F6FFDCE.8010002@univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <4F71E114.7020103@inex.ie> On 27/03/2012 16:10, Matja? Straus Isteni? wrote: > On 26. mar. 2012, at 07:25, Harald Michl wrote: >> While we do not use communities to handle the announcements at VIX I >> wonder how you handle 32-bit as-numbers? > > Here, at SIX, we are using extended communities like it was presented by Ondrej at RIPE 63 > http://ripe63.ripe.net/presentations/160-BIRD-20111103-OF-RIPE-EIX-RS.pdf I'm waiting for some movement on Robert Raszuk's wide community draft to gain some traction here: tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raszuk-wide-bgp-communities Nick From gert at space.net Thu Mar 29 13:21:04 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:21:04 +0200 Subject: [eix-wg] [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> Message-ID: <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase. Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just specific aspects of the proposal as written now. thanks, Gert Doering, APWG chair On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs > with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback > received on the mailing list. We have published the new version > (version 3.0) today. > > Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are: > > -a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed > section 5.6.2 > > > As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", > the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new > Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the > RIPE Policy Development Process. > > The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact > analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published > > > You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 > > and the draft document at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft > > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 3 April 2011. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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 boggits at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 13:29:16 2012 From: boggits at gmail.com (boggits) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:29:16 +0100 Subject: [eix-wg] [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> Message-ID: On 29 March 2012 12:21, Gert Doering wrote: > Dear Address-Policy WG, > ?(cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") > > after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you > have been VERY quiet in this review phase. > > Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough > for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments > really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. I thought I saw a lot of "we support this" emails (mostly from IX operators), if not then I'll start with "I support this policy" J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476 From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Thu Mar 29 15:08:42 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:08:42 +0100 Subject: [eix-wg] [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <20120329123616.GP84425@Space.Net> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> <20120329123616.GP84425@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20120329130842.GB56063@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:36:16PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >Those were all in the initial discussion phase. I don't need a full >repetition of all these, but a few statements of position in the review >phase *are* helpful, to see whether people are still agreeing, even if the >text has changed somewhat between v1.0 and v3.0 :-) I'm ok with the proposal. Even "new" IXPs will be connecting existing SPs that already have IPv4 legacy space. Other new organisations will have to build ipv6-only networks eventually anyway. Withholding a /16 from those is not going to have a noticeable impact on the Internet. rgds, Sascha Luck From slz at baycix.de Thu Mar 29 15:45:43 2012 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:45:43 +0200 Subject: [eix-wg] [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> Message-ID: *cry* > Dear Address-Policy WG, > (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") > > after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you > have been VERY quiet in this review phase. > > Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough > for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments > really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. > > Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what > you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose > it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just > specific aspects of the proposal as written now. > this is one of those situations ... trying to be a good netizen, even checking and commenting on proposals which i only have a personal opinion of, no real professional one since i don't deal with IXPs so much lately in this case (unfortunately) - but keeping track of which ones i've already said something to, and in which review phase seems to be impossible for an old brain. Some much more intelligent person than me really should come up with a better PDP or some supporting tools to the PDP process beyond the mailinglist archive. But i sensed some opposition to some "informal voting tool" on drafts over the past years :-( Having said that: I still support this proposal ( i think i supported it in earlier phases ) Reasoning: Even though i also think (like some others) that there shouldn't be "special people/companies/etc.", i deem IXPs important enough for the development of the internet in a whole to justify an exception. Also, one less /16 in the pool isn't going to end the world (OTOH it probably would end the IPv4 world one week earlier, but that would be a good thing actually) I think, the community and the NCC can make sure that this "special policy" cannot be abused by fake IXPs or so. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Thu Mar 29 15:47:34 2012 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco Van Mook) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:47:34 +0100 Subject: [eix-wg] [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> Message-ID: I support this policy. Reserving the space has no significant impact on IPv4 runout globally but will enable future exchange platforms to be established and existing ones to expand, which is vital for the future growth of the Internet. Remco van Mook Director of Interconnection, EMEA remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com +31 61 135 6365 MOB EQUINIX 51-53 Great Marlborough Street London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom On 29-03-12 13:21, "Gert Doering" wrote: >Dear Address-Policy WG, > (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") > >after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you >have been VERY quiet in this review phase. > >Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough >for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments >really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. > >Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what >you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose >it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just >specific aspects of the proposal as written now. > >thanks, > >Gert Doering, > APWG chair > > >On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs >> with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback >> received on the mailing list. We have published the new version >> (version 3.0) today. >> >> Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are: >> >> -a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed >> section 5.6.2 >> >> >> As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", >> the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new >> Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the >> RIPE Policy Development Process. >> >> The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact >> analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published >> >> >> You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 >> >> and the draft document at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft >> >> >> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >> to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 3 April 2011. >> >> Regards >> >> Emilio Madaio >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >> > > >Gert Doering > -- NetMaster >-- >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 > 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, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383. From florian.hibler at euro-transit.net Fri Mar 30 09:41:01 2012 From: florian.hibler at euro-transit.net (Florian Hibler - EuroTransit GmbH) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:41:01 +0200 Subject: [eix-wg] [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <31C0727C-31A2-45E9-91B6-B7FF078C3945@euro-transit.net> Hi everyone, I support this policy as well. Same objections as Remco on this topic. Have a nice day/weekend! Best regards, Florian EuroTransit GmbH global IP transit and carrier services Chief Technical Officer Alsterufer 30, D-20354 Hamburg fon: +49 40 41354058 fax: +49 40 41354893 E-Mail: florian.hibler at euro-transit.net Internet: http://www.euro-transit.net EuroTransit GmbH CEO: Andy Fischer Commercial Registry: Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 107158 VAT Number: DE219346766 Registered Office: Hamburg, Germany Notice: This transmittal and/or attachments may be privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmittal in error, please notify us immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Thank you. On Mar 29, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Remco Van Mook wrote: > > I support this policy. Reserving the space has no significant impact on > IPv4 runout globally but will enable future exchange platforms to be > established and existing ones to expand, which is vital for the future > growth of the Internet. > > Remco van Mook > Director of Interconnection, EMEA > > remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com > +31 61 135 6365 MOB > > EQUINIX > 51-53 Great Marlborough Street > London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom > > > > > > > On 29-03-12 13:21, "Gert Doering" wrote: > >> Dear Address-Policy WG, >> (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") >> >> after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you >> have been VERY quiet in this review phase. >> >> Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough >> for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments >> really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. >> >> Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what >> you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose >> it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just >> specific aspects of the proposal as written now. >> >> thanks, >> >> Gert Doering, >> APWG chair >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: >>> >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs >>> with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback >>> received on the mailing list. We have published the new version >>> (version 3.0) today. >>> >>> Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are: >>> >>> -a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed >>> section 5.6.2 >>> >>> >>> As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", >>> the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new >>> Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the >>> RIPE Policy Development Process. >>> >>> The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact >>> analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published >>> >>> >>> You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: >>> >>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 >>> >>> and the draft document at: >>> >>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft >>> >>> >>> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >>> to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 3 April 2011. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Emilio Madaio >>> Policy Development Officer >>> RIPE NCC >>> >>> >> >> >> Gert Doering >> -- NetMaster >> -- >> 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 >> > > > > 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, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383. > From florian.hibler at euro-transit.net Fri Mar 30 09:57:13 2012 From: florian.hibler at euro-transit.net (Florian Hibler - EuroTransit GmbH) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:57:13 +0200 Subject: [eix-wg] [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <31C0727C-31A2-45E9-91B6-B7FF078C3945@euro-transit.net> References: <31C0727C-31A2-45E9-91B6-B7FF078C3945@euro-transit.net> Message-ID: <2F44C731-D519-4259-B20D-3EC3480BDD4C@euro-transit.net> Hi everyone, sorry had too less coffee this morning ;) I wanted to say, that I agree with Remco. Best regards, Florian EuroTransit GmbH global IP transit and carrier services Chief Technical Officer Alsterufer 30, D-20354 Hamburg fon: +49 40 41354058 fax: +49 40 41354893 E-Mail: florian.hibler at euro-transit.net Internet: http://www.euro-transit.net EuroTransit GmbH CEO: Andy Fischer Commercial Registry: Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 107158 VAT Number: DE219346766 Registered Office: Hamburg, Germany Notice: This transmittal and/or attachments may be privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmittal in error, please notify us immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Thank you. On Mar 30, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Florian Hibler - EuroTransit GmbH wrote: > Hi everyone, > I support this policy as well. > > Same objections as Remco on this topic. > > Have a nice day/weekend! > > Best regards, > Florian > > EuroTransit GmbH > global IP transit and carrier services > Chief Technical Officer > > Alsterufer 30, D-20354 Hamburg > fon: +49 40 41354058 > fax: +49 40 41354893 > E-Mail: florian.hibler at euro-transit.net > Internet: http://www.euro-transit.net > > EuroTransit GmbH > CEO: Andy Fischer > Commercial Registry: Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 107158 > VAT Number: DE219346766 > Registered Office: Hamburg, Germany > > Notice: This transmittal and/or attachments may be privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmittal in error, please notify us immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Thank you. > > > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Remco Van Mook wrote: > >> >> I support this policy. Reserving the space has no significant impact on >> IPv4 runout globally but will enable future exchange platforms to be >> established and existing ones to expand, which is vital for the future >> growth of the Internet. >> >> Remco van Mook >> Director of Interconnection, EMEA >> >> remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com >> +31 61 135 6365 MOB >> >> EQUINIX >> 51-53 Great Marlborough Street >> London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 29-03-12 13:21, "Gert Doering" wrote: >> >>> Dear Address-Policy WG, >>> (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") >>> >>> after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you >>> have been VERY quiet in this review phase. >>> >>> Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough >>> for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments >>> really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. >>> >>> Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what >>> you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose >>> it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just >>> specific aspects of the proposal as written now. >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> Gert Doering, >>> APWG chair >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>> >>>> The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs >>>> with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback >>>> received on the mailing list. We have published the new version >>>> (version 3.0) today. >>>> >>>> Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are: >>>> >>>> -a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed >>>> section 5.6.2 >>>> >>>> >>>> As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", >>>> the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new >>>> Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the >>>> RIPE Policy Development Process. >>>> >>>> The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact >>>> analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published >>>> >>>> >>>> You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: >>>> >>>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 >>>> >>>> and the draft document at: >>>> >>>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft >>>> >>>> >>>> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >>>> to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 3 April 2011. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Emilio Madaio >>>> Policy Development Officer >>>> RIPE NCC >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> Gert Doering >>> -- NetMaster >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> 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, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383. >> > From arnold.nipper at de-cix.net Fri Mar 30 22:40:34 2012 From: arnold.nipper at de-cix.net (Arnold Nipper) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:40:34 +0200 Subject: [eix-wg] [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4F761A42.9020206@de-cix.net> On 29.03.2012 13:21, Gert Doering wrote: > Dear Address-Policy WG, > (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") > > after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you > have been VERY quiet in this review phase. > > Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough > for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments > really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. > perhaps the obligatory "I support this proposal" only happened on the Euro-IX mailing list, but I'm pretty sure I've seen these _somewhere_. Hence once again: safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space is an excellent idea. -- Arnold Nipper CTO/COO e-mail: arnold.nipper at de-cix.net DE-CIX Management GmbH mobile: +49 152 5371 7690 Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Koeln phone: +49 69 1730 902 22 Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa fax: +49 69 4056 2716 Registergericht AG Koeln HRB 51135 http://www.de-cix.net From andy at nosignal.org Fri Mar 30 22:50:14 2012 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 21:50:14 +0100 Subject: [eix-wg] [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <4F761A42.9020206@de-cix.net> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> <4F761A42.9020206@de-cix.net> Message-ID: <33218D4D-FF31-4591-96EE-FE04E61A0312@nosignal.org> On 30 Mar 2012, at 21:40, Arnold Nipper wrote: > perhaps the obligatory "I support this proposal" only happened on the Euro-IX mailing list, but I'm pretty sure I've seen these _somewhere_. Hi, Arnold Nope, there was lots on ap-wg too (the correct place for policy development) -- but in any case, I appreciated the renewed support during the Review Phase - thank you again. Andy From paul at prtsystems.ltd.uk Fri Mar 30 09:55:48 2012 From: paul at prtsystems.ltd.uk (Paul Thornton) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:55:48 +0100 Subject: [eix-wg] [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4F756704.1060307@prtsystems.ltd.uk> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs >> with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback >> received on the mailing list. We have published the new version >> (version 3.0) today. I support this policy; it is crucial to ensure that new IXPs can be established in the future. Regards, Paul. -- Paul Thornton Director, PRT Systems Ltd.