From leo at ripe.net Mon Jan 17 10:35:52 2005 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:35:52 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC Message-ID: <41EB86F8.6070107@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2003:0000::/18 from the IANA in January 2005. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our web site at: Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC From vgi at zoreil.com Mon Jan 17 11:00:34 2005 From: vgi at zoreil.com (Vincent Gillet) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:00:34 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <41EB86F8.6070107@ripe.net> References: <41EB86F8.6070107@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20050117100034.GC16150@opentransit.net> Hi Leo, > The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2003:0000::/18 > from the IANA in January 2005. Yep, and 50% of this allocation as already been allocated to one LIR. I am not used to see 50% of IANA block allocated to LIR, but i assume that it is new address-policy rules i was not aware of ! > BTW, i read 2001:2000::/20 ===> smallest RIPE Allocation : /32 and "Smallest allocation" refers to the smallest allocation made to LIRs by the RIPE NCC Since 2001:2000::/20 have only one allocation, should not it be "/20" ? V From jeroen at unfix.org Mon Jan 17 11:46:30 2005 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:46:30 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <20050117100034.GC16150@opentransit.net> References: <41EB86F8.6070107@ripe.net> <20050117100034.GC16150@opentransit.net> Message-ID: <1105958790.8582.37.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 11:00 +0100, Vincent Gillet wrote: > Hi Leo, > > > The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2003:0000::/18 > > from the IANA in January 2005. > > Yep, and 50% of this allocation as already been allocated to one LIR. > > I am not used to see 50% of IANA block allocated to LIR, but i > assume that it is new address-policy rules i was not aware of ! What is the issue with this? Deutsche Telekom can _easily_ show demand for the need for this allocation and that is the only thing they need to do. I actually am very glad that they got this, now let's see how quickly all Germans will have access to IPv6, this should give some momentum to hosters saying "there are no IPv6 clients". This policy has been in place for quite some time already and works for most if not all people, complain address-policy-wg at ripe.net if you really do not like it. Btw we are nearing 1000 global IPv6 allocations over 77 countries ;) 1x /19 2x /20 2x /21 1x /23 59x /24 2x /27 57x /28 2x /30 1x /31 772x /32 11x /35 Totaling in 910 TLA prefixes. 145 of which 6bone, the /24 & /28's + some /32's which will disappear next year (6/6/2006). RIPE (432) APNIC (183) ARIN (130) LACNIC (20) The RIPE region is of course in lead ;) Also see: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/ > > > > BTW, i read > > 2001:2000::/20 ===> smallest RIPE Allocation : /32 > > and > > "Smallest allocation" refers to the smallest allocation made to LIRs by the RIPE NCC > > Since 2001:2000::/20 have only one allocation, should not it be "/20" ? a /32 is "small", a /20 is "big", thus a /32 is the smallest prefix that will be given from this block. The largest is indeed logically a /20. Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From dr at cluenet.de Mon Jan 17 12:32:04 2005 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:32:04 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <20050117100034.GC16150@opentransit.net> References: <41EB86F8.6070107@ripe.net> <20050117100034.GC16150@opentransit.net> Message-ID: <20050117113203.GA2601@srv01.cluenet.de> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 11:00:34AM +0100, Vincent Gillet wrote: > > The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2003:0000::/18 > > from the IANA in January 2005. > > Yep, and 50% of this allocation as already been allocated to one LIR. > > I am not used to see 50% of IANA block allocated to LIR, but i > assume that it is new address-policy rules i was not aware of ! Those are in place since longer. Take customer count and HD-Ratio and do the maths. It's simple, and DTAG would probably have qualified for more if they really wanted. France Telecom has a couple of million customers too I guess. A /20 can be justified by approx. 3.2 million, a /19 needs ~5.5mio. Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From gert at space.net Mon Jan 17 12:32:21 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:32:21 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <20050117100034.GC16150@opentransit.net> References: <41EB86F8.6070107@ripe.net> <20050117100034.GC16150@opentransit.net> Message-ID: <20050117113221.GZ84850@Space.Net> Hi, (cc: list reduced to ipv6-wg) On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 11:00:34AM +0100, Vincent Gillet wrote: > Hi Leo, > > > The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2003:0000::/18 > > from the IANA in January 2005. > > Yep, and 50% of this allocation as already been allocated to one LIR. > > I am not used to see 50% of IANA block allocated to LIR, but i > assume that it is new address-policy rules i was not aware of ! This is not "new rules" but "ICANN folly that we're in the process of changing" (and this has taken far too long already). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From vgi at zoreil.com Mon Jan 17 15:25:21 2005 From: vgi at zoreil.com (Vincent Gillet) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:25:21 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <20050117113203.GA2601@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <41EB86F8.6070107@ripe.net> <20050117100034.GC16150@opentransit.net> <20050117113203.GA2601@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <20050117142521.GB18011@opentransit.net> dr at cluenet.de disait : > On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 11:00:34AM +0100, Vincent Gillet wrote: > > > The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2003:0000::/18 > > > from the IANA in January 2005. > > > > Yep, and 50% of this allocation as already been allocated to one LIR. > > > > I am not used to see 50% of IANA block allocated to LIR, but i > > assume that it is new address-policy rules i was not aware of ! > > Those are in place since longer. Take customer count and HD-Ratio > and do the maths. It's simple, and DTAG would probably have qualified > for more if they really wanted. > > France Telecom has a couple of million customers too I guess. A > /20 can be justified by approx. 3.2 million, a /19 needs ~5.5mio. I am ok this the size /whatever. My concern is the difference about /18 allocation from IANA versus /19 allocation to LIR thus a 50% immediate usage. If France Telecom get a /19 too, it is full ==> . Ripe would request another block to IANA, . adminitrative work, . need to notify LIRs about this new block .... . need to update filters oncemore, .... I am more concerned with Operations. Update filtering is part of my job. Vincent. From gert at space.net Mon Jan 17 15:39:14 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:39:14 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <20050117142521.GB18011@opentransit.net> References: <41EB86F8.6070107@ripe.net> <20050117100034.GC16150@opentransit.net> <20050117113203.GA2601@srv01.cluenet.de> <20050117142521.GB18011@opentransit.net> Message-ID: <20050117143914.GE84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:25:21PM +0100, Vincent Gillet wrote: > I am ok this the size /whatever. > > My concern is the difference about > /18 allocation from IANA > versus > /19 allocation to LIR > > thus a 50% immediate usage. As I've mentioned before (maybe overly cryptic) this is an area of ongoing concern - and the goal is to distribute address space from ICANN to the RIRs in "reasonable" chunks, for example a /12 or /8. There are some proposals out in all the regions, the majority of the constituency in all regions seems to be in favour of it (with small regional changes that are not incompatible to other regions), and we're waiting to see it implemented. The fact that the current allocation strategy is less-than-perfect (to be polite, for once) is mostly ICANNs fault, for clinging to a now-deprecated RFC and being very passive about abouting the processes. Bluntly: there are some people that cannot count, and assume that "IPv6 will run out tomorrow" if reasonable sizes are distributed. The arguments are always very similar ("classful addressing has failed in the past!" "people also said that 640 kbytes are enough!" and other "I don't want to think about large numbers but I oppose this!"- Arguments). Much more details about this can be found in the archives of the IPv6 WG and the address-policy WG (on http://www.ripe.net/) Gert Doering -- Address Policy WG Co-Chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From vgi at zoreil.com Mon Jan 17 11:00:34 2005 From: vgi at zoreil.com (Vincent Gillet) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:00:34 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] [address-policy-wg] Re: New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <41EB86F8.6070107@ripe.net> References: <41EB86F8.6070107@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20050117100034.GC16150@opentransit.net> Hi Leo, > The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2003:0000::/18 > from the IANA in January 2005. Yep, and 50% of this allocation as already been allocated to one LIR. I am not used to see 50% of IANA block allocated to LIR, but i assume that it is new address-policy rules i was not aware of ! > BTW, i read 2001:2000::/20 ===> smallest RIPE Allocation : /32 and "Smallest allocation" refers to the smallest allocation made to LIRs by the RIPE NCC Since 2001:2000::/20 have only one allocation, should not it be "/20" ? V From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Tue Jan 18 09:29:18 2005 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:29:18 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC Message-ID: <00A3E0D1.076867B4.1@cc.univie.ac.at> >"ICANN folly that we're in the process of changing" >(and this has taken far too long already). I propose to suggest the phrase "this has taken far too long already" as the new trademark for IANA/ICANN operations... >Gert Doering > -- NetMaster Sorry, couldn't resist... Wilfried ( https://cert.aco.net/ ) [ not wearing any hat for this message, just typing as a regular network citizen] _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...there's no place like 127.0.0.1 (or ::1/128 ?) From pfs at cisco.com Wed Jan 19 12:37:37 2005 From: pfs at cisco.com (Philip Smith) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:37:37 +1000 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <00A3E0D1.076867B4.1@cc.univie.ac.at> References: <00A3E0D1.076867B4.1@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <41EE4681.7050206@cisco.com> Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet said the following on 18/01/2005 18:29: > > I propose to suggest the phrase "this has taken far too long already" > as the new trademark for IANA/ICANN operations... Oh, Wilfried, you should be a little happy. At least IANA/ICANN didn't declare that the RIPE NCC had been allocated 32 /23s as has been their previous custom. This is progress... ;-) philip --