From manuel at ripe.net Tue May 1 19:10:22 2001 From: manuel at ripe.net (Manuel Valente) Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 19:10:22 +0200 Subject: IPMT specification rough draft Message-ID: <20010501191022.6b2e947e.manuel@ripe.net> Hi, Following a presentation by Guy Vegoda at the Tools BOF at RIPE37 of an IP Management Tool, interest was expressed in the development of an Open Source version of such a tool and we used the lirwg list to draw up Requirements for this. We have now produced some rough specifications for this tool that we will present at the upcoming Tools WG tomorrow. We will target as users 'The Hostmaster staff of Local Internet Registries which are Customers of the RIPE NCC and who need to manage their IP Allocations and Assignments and the requests for same that they send to the RIPE NCC'. We would now like the help of such potential users to refine these specifications into something that the RIPE NCC and interested developers can go away and implement. So, if you're interested by such a tool, please come along to the RIPE39 Tools WG tomorrow at 16h00 in the Europa Auditorium. Thanks. -- Manuel Valente - Software Manager - RIPE NCC ------------------------------------------------------------------ Draft of Specifications for an IP Management Tool Manuel Valente, Leo Vegoda, Maldwyn Morris RIPE NCC swcontact at ripe.net 20010419 0. Introduction Following a presentation of an IP Management Tool by Guy Vegoda at the Tools BOF at RIPE 38 [1], interest was expressed in the development of an Open Source version of such a tool and we drew up Requirements (qv) 1. General Points Open Source: We will release this software under the LGPL licence [2]. We use this instead of GPL [3] because this means we will remain able to using non-GPL'ed libraries, should that prove necessary. The RIPE NCC is happy to support this project, but of course its Open Source nature means anyone else can use the code to begin their own Open Source project. We are also happy about that. IPV6: We would be foolish not to consider the possibility of using this tool for managing IPV6 addresses and writing it such that this is possible, but we think it will be useful even if it does not and do not consider IPV6 support a requirement. 2. Definitions: Parties : RIPE NCC: The European Regional Internet Registry, which grants IPV4 address allocations to its customers, the LIRs. LIR: A customer of the RIPE NCC which interracts with the RIPE NCC in order to make IPV4 address assignments to their LIRCustomers from the LIR's IPV4 address allocation. LIR Customer: A person or organisation which wants to receive IPV4 address assignments. LIR Hostmaster: A person working for a LIR whose job it is to make IPV4 address assignments to the LIR Customers. Registered IPV4 Address Information: There are two forms of IPV4 address information which are registerd by the RIPE NCC and which are stored in the RIPE Whois Database: IPV4 Address allocations and IPV4 Address assignments. IPV4 Address allocations: A range of IPV4 addresses from which the RIPE NCC allows a certain LIR to make IPV4 Address assignments to their LIRCustomers. IPV4 Address assignments: A range of IPV4 addresses from a LIR's IPV4 Address allocations which the RIPE NCC and the LIR allows a certain LIRCustomer to use on the Internet. Interactions: I1: LIR Customer Assignment Request: An LIRCustomer asks their LIR for an IPV4 Address assignment and the LIR replies. Composed of: I1.1: LIRCustomer communicates request for IPV4 Address assignment to LIR I1.2: LIRHostmaster evaluates request I1.3: LIRHostmaster queries LIRCustomer about request I1.4: LIRHostmaster actions request I1.5: LIRHostmaster informs LIRCustomer of request outcome I1.6: LIRHostmaster completes request for LIR Customer I2: LIR Assignment Request: An LIR asks the RIPE NCC for approval of an IPV4 Address assignment and the RIPE NCC replies. I2.1: LIRHostmaster formulates query I2.2: LIRHostmaster sends request to NCC I2.3: LIRHostmaster handles response I2.4: LIRHostmaster completes request I3: LIR Allocation Request: An LIR asks the RIPE NCC for an IPV4 Address allocation and the RIPE NCC replies. I3.1: LIRHostmaster formulates query I3.2: LIRHostmaster sends request to NCC I3.3: LIRHostmaster handles response I3.4: LIRHostmaster completes request I4: LIRH Manages Customers I4.1: LIRHostmaster composes report(s) of info on one customer I4.2: LIRHostmaster composes report(s) on all customers I4.3: Creation of new customer I4.3: Update customer info I4.3: Delete customer I5: LIRH Manages LIR's Assignments I5.1: LIRHostmaster composes report of all assignments I5.2: LIRHostmaster composes report on a specific assignment I6: LIRH Manages LIR's Allocations I6.1: LIRHostmaster composes report of all allocations I6.2: LIRHostmaster composes report on a specific allocation 3. IPMT Functional Breakdown The functions the IPMT tool must provide, divided per Interaction. I1: LIR Customer Assignment Request: I1.1. LIRCustomer communicates request for IPV4 Address assignment to LIR IPMT: F1: receive the LIR Customer Assignment Request F2: store request info F3: LIR Hostmaster sees new request I1.2 LIRHostmaster evaluates request IPMT: F4: Check request correctly formatted and I1.5: Deny if not F5: Check request valid and I1.5: Deny if not F6: Check LIR Customer valid and I1.5: Deny if not I1.3: LIRHostmaster queries LIRCustomer about request IPMT: F7: Get more info from LIR Customer regarding request F8: update request info F9: -> I1.2: Evaluate I1.4: LIRHostmaster actions request F11: Need to ask RIPE to perform request ? -> I2 if so F12: Check request F13: Update request info F14: Check other info concerning assignments F15: Update other info based on request I1.5: LIRHostmaster informs LIRCustomer of request outcome F16: Communicate request outcome and info to LIR Customer I1.6: LIRHostmaster fills in customer request F17: Generate info about request, possible with F7 4. Implementation proposals ?? LIR Hostmaster interracts with IPMT via a GUI. ?? IPMT GUI will have HTML form range of elements ( text, buttons, single-line text, multi-line text, radio buttons, check boxes ). I1.1 LIRCustomer communicates request for IPV4 Address assignment to LIR F1: receive the LIR Customer Assignment Request ?? LIR Customer sends request : - via html form - by snailmail/phone/other & LIRH fills in a GUI form - by email to designated address - address served by mail robot ? - FORGET for now - too complex ? - LIRH uses CLI to fill in - Other LIR fills in using IPMT via API F2: store request info ?? Store in 'LIR Customer request' record in DB ?? Request record: Request id LIR Customer email address date raw request info - from LIR customer comm.s LIRH ID - 'request owner' F3: LIR Hostmaster sees new request ?? IPMT 'fetch next request' button to show next LIR Customer Request in GUI - wait queue... - IPMT perfroms F4,F5,F6 I1.2 LIRHostmaster evaluates request F4: Check request correctly formatted and I1.5: Deny or I1.6 if not IPMT parses 'LIR Customer Request' record, extracts and stores in it: LIR customer id request size in num of IP addresses request category: ?? status: ?? IPMT informs LIR Hostmaster if parse fails F5: Check request valid and I1.5: Deny or I1.6 if not ?? IPMT checks 'LIR Customer request' record ?? I1.3 if more info needed OK ?? IPMT sets 'checked' flag F6: Check LIR customer valid and I1.5: Deny or I1.6 if not IPMT looks up LIR customer info ?? LIR customer info stored in a DB ?? 'LIR customer' record LIR customer id customer email addresses and other contact info. request ids of previous requests total space size of assignments - enough info to make Whois DB person object ? IPMT informs LIR Hostmaster if customer not valid I1.3: LIRHostmaster queries LIRCustomer about request F7: Get more info from LIR customer regarding request ?? LIR Hostmaster uses IPMT to compose and send email to LIR customer ?? LIR customer reply automatically added to 'customer request' record or LIRH can use IPMT to do this ( e.g. : enter phone conversation ) ?? IPMT 'action needed' button to show customer reply received F8: update request info LIR Hostmaster updates 'customer' and 'customer request' records F9: -> I1.2: Evaluate I1.4: LIRHostmaster actions request F11: Need to ask RIPE to perform request ? -> I2 if so IPMT Check LIR Assignment window vs size of request - force insert of NCC# ticket number of approval if it's needed - need access to LIR Assignment window reports to LIR Hostmaster F12: Check request IPMT examines request record vs customer and LIR assignment and allocation records ?? assignment records - in whois ??: - or IPMT stores this locally - or LIR's records ?? via defined API ?? ipv4 range - IPMT makes _suggestion_ - allow choice of methods by config file as debatable - what methods are there ? netname - IPMT makes _suggestion_ ?? allocation records - in whois ??: - or IPMT stores this locally - or LIR's own records ?? via defined API ?? ipv4 range F13: Update request info ?? IPMT generates assignment addresses from 'customer request' record and assignment and allocation records LIR Hostmaster agrees or alters assignment addresses F14: Check other info concerning assignments - too varied so LIR to implement - IPMT provides I4,5,6 to allow LIRH access to info it has ?? LIR workflow stats ?? LIR Hostmaster stats ?? LIR infrastructure updates ?? LIR customer billing F15: Update other info based on request IPMT stores assignment addresses in 'customer request' record I1.5: LIRHostmaster informs LIRCustomer of request outcome F16: Communicate request outcome and info to customer LIR Hostmaster uses IPMT to compose and send email to customer Update 'customer request' record I2: LIR Assignment Request: An LIR asks the RIPE NCC for approval of an IPV4 Address assignment and the RIPE NCC replies. I2.1: LIRHostmaster formulates query F20: LIRH uses IPMT to produce a filled-out 141 Form. Gets data from customer, request and assignment records I2.2: LIRHostmaster sends request to NCC F21: Send request to RIPE-NCC by e-mail I2.3: LIRHostmaster handles response F22: Check response of RIPE-NCC and resent request if necessary -> repeat F20 I2.4: LIRHostmaster completes request F23: Update customer, request and assignment records. I3: LIR Allocation Request: An LIR asks the RIPE NCC for an IPV4 Address allocation and the RIPE NCC replies. I3.1: LIRHostmaster formulates query F30: Gets data from assignment and allocation records and fills out pro-forma request to RIPE-NCC. I3.2: LIRHostmaster sends request to NCC F31: Send request by e-mail. I3.3: LIRHostmaster handles response F32: Check response of RIPE-NCC and resent request if necessary -> repeat F30 I3.4: LIRHostmaster completes request F33: Update assignment and allocation records From hph at online.no Tue May 1 21:51:30 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 21:51:30 +0200 Subject: lir-wg draft minutes from RIPE 38 Message-ID: <00dc01c0d287$09bdb760$2906e1c3@hph> Dear lir-wg, I am sorry for submitting the draft minutes to you at such a late stage, it is partly due to the fact that I myself got the minutes rather late, partly due to my own lack of time to go trough them. Hans Petter --------- Draft Minutes Tuesday 23 January 2001. Scribe: RIPE NCC Hostmaster - Geoff Charters, Roger Arcilla Hans Petter Holen (HPH) opens the meeting by describing the way policies are developed in this region. Policies are developed in open forums (LIR-WG in the RIPE region). The Address Council (AC) oversees the process and gives resommendations to the ICANN board. He asks the audience to give input to the AC. He also stresses that the AC are elected by the regional policy foras like the lir-wg and that we are not there to make policy ourselves, but merely to oversee the policy making in the regions. (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-38/presentations.html#LIR)5 HPH introduces the members of the AC: There are 3 members from the APNIC region, 3 from the ARIN region, 3 from the RIPE region (see http://www.aso.icann.org/ac/) Sabine Jaumes term is ending. At the RIPE 38 plenary session elections will take place. HPH describes how the AC operates: The AC makes an effort not only to attend open policy forums and other events in the recpetive region, but also to gather input trough special input foras. The AC and the RIRs have recently sent out a call for nominations for a vacant ICANN board seat. Nominations can be submitted by anyone. There is also a possibility to express support for nominees. In order to keep the geographic diversity on the ICANN board, the new board member cannot come from Europe or the Asian Pacific region. Address allocation policies are developed in a bottom-up manner in each region. How is global policy developed? Is a proposal first discussed in each region and then coordinatd between the RIRs? This can be a long process. Do we need to create a gobal mechanism? Is there more co-ordination necessary between the RIRs or the regional open policy forums? What are global issues, what are regional? HPH reports from the workshop the AC had with the RIRs and IANA in Brisbane in November 2000. It was a very productive and effective workshop. The role of the AC was discussed. Is the AC too active or not active enough? An action was placed on the RIR's to compare regional policies. The goal is not to produce the same policies - but to find the differences. There might reasons for different policies. The general issue on how to take care of resource (IP addresses, ASNs). Is it a public resource that need to be protected or should it be market driven or auctioned? The AC is committed to be more proactive in informing the community about their acivities by creating a publically archived mailing list which is used for AC meeting agendas, minutes and policy discussions. Only about 5 people in the audience looked at the ASO web site. HPH encourgaes everyone to follow the developments. One achievement during last year was the discussion related to address space needed for GPRS. This has been taken up in all regions and is being handled in a consistent way. Up til now, address requirements for the GPRS infrastructure has been discussed. Further discussions need to take addresses for handsets into account. Many of these developments address issues listed by the Ad hoc group. The Ad hoc group will present its final report to ICANN shortly and will then be closed. The RIRs submitted a document to the AC and to ICANN listing criteria to be used by ICANN when approving emerging RIR. According the ASO MoU it is ICANN that makes the final decision about the approval of a new RIR. One important criteria is strong support from within the region of the emerging RIR. Similar to the RIPE LIR-WG there are open policy forums in the ARIN and APNIC regions. HPH wonders if this was a useful overview of AC activities and asks for feedback. What should be on the AC's list of actions for 2001? The audience feels this was useful. Mark McFadden wants the AC to do more. In particular: there is a lot of discussion about scarcity of IPv4 addresses and ASNs. A lot of work is done in an uncoordinated way. Wants the AC to co-ordinate this. Spreaded activities all over the world, wants the AC to combine this work. He is not suggesting that they do the work themselves. He also wants the AC be more active in globalising addressing policies. He also feels that RFC2050 should be revised, the AC should not do this, but another group. It is out of date and incomplete. Randy Bush agrees with Marks second point, it would be nice to have policies/procedures more aligned. To the first point, this work is ongoing in the IETF. The only useful addition one could be to compile and bundle this work for people who do not have the time to follow all developments. Mark points out that there is engineering work being done outside the IETF, the AC could play a role in this. Wilfried Woeber would like to share some of his experiences with this 'flying circus': sometimes one finds out that one was part of a feedback loop. Requirement to interact with different people and groups, this is a good thing about the Internet industry self-regulation. On the issue of global policy, thinks the AC did a good start by asking the RIRs to look at each other policies and define which ones are different and why. Then this could be given back to the communities asking if they want to keep it the way, because they are used to this and it doesn't harm or if they want to put energy in it to try to make them more aligned. Carsten Schiefner wonders if there a transition plan from the established RIRs to the emerging RIRs. HPH explains that this is done in a bottom-up manner: ISPs in the area cannot be forced to either stay or move, they have to show support. Randy wonders if there will be competition between the RIRs? Mirjam: No, RIRs operate in geographic regions, it has been working well so far, they are not proposals on the table to change this. Juergen Rauschenbach notes that the IPv6 policy document still pending, because one of the communities did not agree. He wonders if additional RIRs will impose even more delay on these kinds of issues. Mirjam explains that policies are in place so that IPv6 operations are not delayed through that. SubTLAS are handed out. ARIN community set up a working group to look into the policy. Richard Jimmerson from ARIN reports from the status of the ARIN IPv6-WG. Juergen suggests to implement regional policies if one of the regional communities cannot make a decision to go along with the others. Mirjam urges everybody to try to develop globally consistent allocation policy for IPv6. The RIRs are still committed to that. She reminds the audience that the fact that some of the IPv4 allocation policies have not been aligned has created constant criticism. Lets try to avoid this in IPv6. Paul Mylotte: Presentation on global address forecast (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-38/presentations.html#LIR) Juergen believes that both methods are flawed 1. method: H-Ratio has not taken into account Even though there are 400 million addresses still available it will be hard to push density above 116 million addresses used, currently density at about 105 - 110 millions 2. method: good numbers if the growth is staying stable. There are more factors: mobile devices, address needs in China etc. Scott Markus also comments on method 2: not on the total numbers allocated, but on the growth itself; change in the change, no change in the base. Geoff Huston for instance calculates 7% of addresses allocated Mark MacFadden acknowledges that substantial work has been done in a number of areas. Personally he believes the H-ratio is questionable. He would like to see some harmony between the work that is going on. They all relate to different things, difficult to compare. We need to bring this information together. The AC should take on this work. Scott agrees with Mark. There was a discussion among the RIRs themselves to put more effort into this, will make the base data more widely available and put more work into this. Leos Vegoda: presentation (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-38/presentations.html#LIR) Wilfried wonders if we really want to go into a lot of details for such small amount of address space? Should there be a standard size of address space where one is entitled to have one without any questions asked? Joao believes that this would mean a shift from assignments based on actual need to more simplification. Gerd is in favour of giving people public addresses instead of private addresses if they don't want it. He would be happy to give everyone a /29. This would make life easier for people and would also pushes the deployment of IPv6. John Klensin notes that these kind of limits (/29 in this case) seem to be made up by magic. He advocates to be careful with looking at these numbers and to draw conclusions from them or to assume all kinds of things that might not be valid in the future. PaulW points out that this proposal has also global implications. In the APNIC region there is very rapid deployment of cable and ADSL in a number of countries. Any decision that is made here, will be used and seen as a precedent in other regions. This will increase the usage rate significantly. He suggests to still have it dependend on the network and the application, not on the technology. An assignment of a /29 to all cable and ADSL customers seem to be very dangerous and not at all necessary. HPH proposes to introduce a separate assignment window for infrastructure. Maybe together with some safeguard to review this once a year or so. Discussion will be continued on the mailing list. Finally the ASO General Assembly Meeting was announced to be held in San Francisco on 4 April 2001. From hph at online.no Tue May 1 22:13:43 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 22:13:43 +0200 Subject: lir-wg Open actions from RIPE 38 References: <004201c0b7e0$7deb8c00$0500000a@hph> <003b01c0ce72$ad40c2b0$0600000a@hph> <000d01c0d18e$dd37d980$2906e1c3@hph> Message-ID: <00dd01c0d287$18c86ca0$2906e1c3@hph> It seems that nobody noticed, (or cares ?) that I missed out all the open actions from RIPE 38: | | Actions from last meeting: | | | | 35.4 NCC PGP Key exchange procedure | | 35.5 NCC Implement PGP for hm | | 36.5 Chair Assignment window applied on infrastructure Closed at RIPE 38 | | 36.6 AP Collect arbitrators Taken care of | | 36.7 NCC Keep lir-wg updated on pre RIR address space changes On the agenda of the db-wg | | 37.1 WG Further discuss restoring the transparency | | 37.2 NCC Incorporate IESG/IAB proposal into IPv6 policy On the agenda of the joint lir-wg/ipv6-wg | | 37.3 M17 Work with the RIPE NCC to implement suggestions on the agenda 38.1 WG Elect Chair/Co chairs Nominations done. On todays agenda. 38.2 NCC Implement changes to the form while taking into account the comments from the WG 38.3 WG Reopen policy discussion - do we need a major revision of RIPE 185 38.4 AC Consider how to coordinate Address prediction work Effort launced trough ARIN 38.5 NCC Implement 34.6 LIR-ALLOCATED 38.6 WG Discuss PI policy On todays agenda. From hph at online.no Fri May 4 10:29:19 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 10:29:19 +0200 Subject: Acrion list after RIPE 39 Message-ID: <002701c0d474$50c904e0$2b0900c1@hph> 35.4 NCC PGP Key exchange procedure Low prio 35.5 NCC Implement PGP for hm Low prio 36.5 Chair Assignment window applied on infrastructure Proposed change 36.6 AP Collect arbitrators Taken care of. 36.7 NCC Keep lir-wg updated on pre RIR address space changes Db-wg presentation 37.1 WG Further discuss restoring the transparency Ntr 38.2 NCC Implement changes to the form while taking into account the comments from the WG In progress 38.3 WG Reopen policy discussion - do we need a major revision of RIPE 185 RIPE 40 38.4 AC Consider how to coordinate Address prediction work Work launced 38.5 NCC Implement 34.6 LIR-ALLOCATED 38.6 NCC Propose PI policy to the WG Ongoing 39.1 NCC Better metrics & more relevant stats 39.2 NCC Suggest procedure and possible policy changes 39.3 NCC Call for AC nominations 39.4 Chairs Define & divide work 39.5 Chairs Beta test 6 weeks deadline for proposals From hph at online.no Fri May 4 10:29:19 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 10:29:19 +0200 Subject: Acrion list after RIPE 39 Message-ID: <002701c0d474$50c904e0$2b0900c1@hph> 35.4 NCC PGP Key exchange procedure Low prio 35.5 NCC Implement PGP for hm Low prio 36.5 Chair Assignment window applied on infrastructure Proposed change 36.6 AP Collect arbitrators Taken care of. 36.7 NCC Keep lir-wg updated on pre RIR address space changes Db-wg presentation 37.1 WG Further discuss restoring the transparency Ntr 38.2 NCC Implement changes to the form while taking into account the comments from the WG In progress 38.3 WG Reopen policy discussion - do we need a major revision of RIPE 185 RIPE 40 38.4 AC Consider how to coordinate Address prediction work Work launced 38.5 NCC Implement 34.6 LIR-ALLOCATED 38.6 NCC Propose PI policy to the WG Ongoing 39.1 NCC Better metrics & more relevant stats 39.2 NCC Suggest procedure and possible policy changes 39.3 NCC Call for AC nominations 39.4 Chairs Define & divide work 39.5 Chairs Beta test 6 weeks deadline for proposals From ncc at ripe.net Fri May 4 16:52:47 2001 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service) Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 16:52:47 +0200 Subject: New Document available: RIPE-220 Message-ID: <200105041452.QAA11314@office.ripe.net> New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new document is available from the RIPE Document Store. Short content description ------------------------- Supporting Notes for the European IP Address Space Request Form. This document obseletes RIPE-142. Accessing the RIPE Document Store --------------------------------- The RIPE document store is available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-220.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-220.txt plain text version You can also access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW. RIPE-220 is not available from the WWW at this moment, but will be soon, at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-220.html From ncc at ripe.net Fri May 4 16:58:29 2001 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service) Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 16:58:29 +0200 Subject: New Document available: RIPE-219 Message-ID: <200105041458.QAA23820@office.ripe.net> New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new document is available from the RIPE Document Store. Short content description ------------------------- RIPE Document number 219 is the European IP Address Space Request Form. This new document obseletes RIPE-141. Accessing the RIPE Document Store --------------------------------- The RIPE document store is available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-219.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-219.txt plain text version You can also access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW. RIPE-219 is not available from the WWW at this moment, but will be soon, at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-219.html From ncc at ripe.net Fri May 4 16:52:47 2001 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service) Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 16:52:47 +0200 Subject: New Document available: RIPE-220 Message-ID: <200105041452.QAA11314@office.ripe.net> New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new document is available from the RIPE Document Store. Short content description ------------------------- Supporting Notes for the European IP Address Space Request Form. This document obseletes RIPE-142. Accessing the RIPE Document Store --------------------------------- The RIPE document store is available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-220.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-220.txt plain text version You can also access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW. RIPE-220 is not available from the WWW at this moment, but will be soon, at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-220.html From ncc at ripe.net Fri May 4 16:58:29 2001 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service) Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 16:58:29 +0200 Subject: New Document available: RIPE-219 Message-ID: <200105041458.QAA23820@office.ripe.net> New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new document is available from the RIPE Document Store. Short content description ------------------------- RIPE Document number 219 is the European IP Address Space Request Form. This new document obseletes RIPE-141. Accessing the RIPE Document Store --------------------------------- The RIPE document store is available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-219.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-219.txt plain text version You can also access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW. RIPE-219 is not available from the WWW at this moment, but will be soon, at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-219.html From marck at rinet.ru Fri May 4 18:37:45 2001 From: marck at rinet.ru (Dmitry Morozovsky) Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 20:37:45 +0400 (MSD) Subject: New Document available: RIPE-219 In-Reply-To: <200105041458.QAA23820@office.ripe.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 4 May 2001, RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service wrote: RNDAS> Document number 219 is the European IP Address Space Request RNDAS> Form. This new document obseletes RIPE-141. I suppose differences between ripe-141 and ripe-219 are interesting for the LIR community. They follow (besides formatting issues and obvious references); on the other hand, most of changes between ripe-142 and ripe-220 are in formatting and changing all dates to 4-digit year notaion. --- ripe-141.txt +++ ripe-219.txt @@ -25,13 +24,13 @@ This document contains the set of templates to be used when submitting an IP assignment request. This set of templates must be used by - Internet Service Providers when submitting a request to the RIPE NCC. + Local Internet Registries when submitting a request to the RIPE NCC. It may also be used by ISPs to collect information from those managing the networks that will use the address space. Instructions for filling out the templates are found in the accompanying document "Supporting - Notes for the European IP Address Space Request Form ( ripe-142). + Notes for the European IP Address Space Request Form ( ripe-219). - Internet Service Providers: Submit the form via e-mail to + Requesters: Submit the form via e-mail to "." (If the ISP is not a Local Internet Registry , the form should be submitted to the upstream provider.) @@ -138,13 +137,14 @@ inetnum: netname: descr: - descr: country: admin-c: tech-c: status: +mnt-by: +mnt-lower: (optional) +mnt-routes: (optional) notify: (optional) - mnt-by: (optional) changed: source: RIPE @@ -152,8 +152,6 @@ person: address: - address: - address: e-mail: phone: fax-no: (optional) @@ -163,6 +161,13 @@ changed: source: RIPE - #[TEMPLATES END]# IV. Optional Information Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, DM268-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck at rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From marck at rinet.ru Fri May 4 18:37:45 2001 From: marck at rinet.ru (Dmitry Morozovsky) Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 20:37:45 +0400 (MSD) Subject: New Document available: RIPE-219 Message-ID: <200105041638.UAA01977@phil.wplus.net> To: <200105041458.QAA23820 at office.ripe.net> Cc: RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service On Fri, 4 May 2001, RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service wrote: RNDAS> Document number 219 is the European IP Address Space Request RNDAS> Form. This new document obseletes RIPE-141. I suppose differences between ripe-141 and ripe-219 are interesting for the LIR community. They follow (besides formatting issues and obvious references); on the other hand, most of changes between ripe-142 and ripe-220 are in formatting and changing all dates to 4-digit year notaion. --- ripe-141.txt +++ ripe-219.txt @@ -25,13 +24,13 @@ This document contains the set of templates to be used when submitting an IP assignment request. This set of templates must be used by - Internet Service Providers when submitting a request to the RIPE NCC. + Local Internet Registries when submitting a request to the RIPE NCC. It may also be used by ISPs to collect information from those managing the networks that will use the address space. Instructions for filling out the templates are found in the accompanying document "Supporting - Notes for the European IP Address Space Request Form ( ripe-142). + Notes for the European IP Address Space Request Form ( ripe-219). - Internet Service Providers: Submit the form via e-mail to + Requesters: Submit the form via e-mail to "." (If the ISP is not a Local Internet Registry , the form should be submitted to the upstream provider.) @@ -138,13 +137,14 @@ inetnum: netname: descr: - descr: country: admin-c: tech-c: status: +mnt-by: +mnt-lower: (optional) +mnt-routes: (optional) notify: (optional) - mnt-by: (optional) changed: source: RIPE @@ -152,8 +152,6 @@ person: address: - address: - address: e-mail: phone: fax-no: (optional) @@ -163,6 +161,13 @@ changed: source: RIPE - #[TEMPLATES END]# IV. Optional Information Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, DM268-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck at rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From mir at ripe.net Mon May 7 17:12:46 2001 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:12:46 +0200 Subject: IPv6 Bootstrap Phase Message-ID: <200105071512.RAA02830@x30.ripe.net> Dear colleagues, As discussed at RIPE 39 in Bologna last week, we have almost reached the end of the bootstrap phase for IPv6 allocations as originally defined in the "Provisional IPv6 Assignment and Allocation Policy Document": 4.2.2.1. Duration of Bootstrap Phase " The eligibility criteria in this section will only apply until 100 requesting organisations have received allocations of sub-TLA address space, provided that no more than 60 of these organisations are located in one Regional IR's region. After this threshold has been reached, the bootstrap phase will be considered to be over and Regional IRs will only make allocations to organisations that meet the general criteria in section 4.2.1. " The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have jointly made almost 80 IPv6 allocations to date. At the RIPE meeting it was suggested to continue allocating under the bootstrap criteria until 100 allocations have been made and to further extend the bootstrap phase. No specific end for the bootstrap phase has been suggested. The RIRs will inform the community as soon as 100 IPv6 allocations have been made. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From mir at ripe.net Mon May 7 17:12:46 2001 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:12:46 +0200 Subject: IPv6 Bootstrap Phase Message-ID: <200105071512.RAA02830@x30.ripe.net> Dear colleagues, As discussed at RIPE 39 in Bologna last week, we have almost reached the end of the bootstrap phase for IPv6 allocations as originally defined in the "Provisional IPv6 Assignment and Allocation Policy Document": 4.2.2.1. Duration of Bootstrap Phase " The eligibility criteria in this section will only apply until 100 requesting organisations have received allocations of sub-TLA address space, provided that no more than 60 of these organisations are located in one Regional IR's region. After this threshold has been reached, the bootstrap phase will be considered to be over and Regional IRs will only make allocations to organisations that meet the general criteria in section 4.2.1. " The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have jointly made almost 80 IPv6 allocations to date. At the RIPE meeting it was suggested to continue allocating under the bootstrap criteria until 100 allocations have been made and to further extend the bootstrap phase. No specific end for the bootstrap phase has been suggested. The RIRs will inform the community as soon as 100 IPv6 allocations have been made. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From mir at ripe.net Mon May 7 17:35:11 2001 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:35:11 +0200 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105071535.RAA02910@x30.ripe.net> [Apologies for multiple postings. I suggest to keep the discussion on as it is related to address allocation policies]. Dear colleagues, At RIPE 39 last week in Bologna the issue of IPv6 address assignments to Internet Exchange Points was discussed (see also my mail from 24 April 2001 to these lists). There was consensus to assign a /64 to an isolated Exchange Point. It was further suggested to assign the agreed standard assignment size to a site (currently a /48) to a group of inter-connected Exchange Points. An Internet Exchange Point was defined as follows: 3 or more ASes and 3 or more separate entities attached to a LAN (the same infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome to join. The RIPE NCC proposes to proceed with assignments for Exchange Points under the above policy. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From mir at ripe.net Mon May 7 17:35:11 2001 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:35:11 +0200 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105071535.RAA02910@x30.ripe.net> [Apologies for multiple postings. I suggest to keep the discussion on as it is related to address allocation policies]. Dear colleagues, At RIPE 39 last week in Bologna the issue of IPv6 address assignments to Internet Exchange Points was discussed (see also my mail from 24 April 2001 to these lists). There was consensus to assign a /64 to an isolated Exchange Point. It was further suggested to assign the agreed standard assignment size to a site (currently a /48) to a group of inter-connected Exchange Points. An Internet Exchange Point was defined as follows: 3 or more ASes and 3 or more separate entities attached to a LAN (the same infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome to join. The RIPE NCC proposes to proceed with assignments for Exchange Points under the above policy. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From Kristian.Rastas at sonera.com Mon May 7 10:44:16 2001 From: Kristian.Rastas at sonera.com (Kristian Rastas) Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 11:44:16 +0300 Subject: New Document available: RIPE-219 In-Reply-To: References: <200105041458.QAA23820@office.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20010507113553.00b2bd20@mo2.telebox.fi> Hi all, Thanks Marck for making the comparison. I found some minor inconsistencies in documentation. At 20:37 4.5.2001 +0400, marck at rinet.ru wrote: >On Fri, 4 May 2001, RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service wrote: > > the templates are found in the accompanying document "Supporting >- Notes for the European IP Address Space Request Form ( ripe-142). >+ Notes for the European IP Address Space Request Form ( ripe-219). Think the last one should be ripe-220, because it replaces the ripe-142 >+mnt-lower: (optional) >+mnt-routes: (optional) No explanation found about these fields in ripe-220 And one more: >4. Example of a completed ripe-141 form. Should be ripe-219 form. Regards, Kristian Rastas, Sonera Corporation From gert at space.net Mon May 7 17:51:56 2001 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 17:51:56 +0200 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points In-Reply-To: <200105071535.RAA02910@x30.ripe.net>; from mir@ripe.net on Mon, May 07, 2001 at 05:35:11PM +0200 References: <200105071535.RAA02910@x30.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20010507175156.B88986@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 05:35:11PM +0200, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: > An Internet Exchange Point was defined as follows: > > 3 or more ASes and 3 or more separate entities attached to a LAN (the > same infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome > to join. I suggest to change the wording to "a common layer 2 infrastructure" - an exchange point might be some distributed thing peering over an ATM/FR cloud or a SRP/DTP ring, which isn't really a "LAN". Policy should not be tied to special implementation techniques. Besides this, I like the proposal. As discussed with a few people after the WG, it *does* pose the risk of handing out "lots and lots" of /48s and /64s to people claiming to be an exchange point. (It's not that hard to get three ASes together over "some" medium). On the other hand: if we reserve a /35 for that, we have 2^13 /48's to hand out to "would-be IXes". So the danger of address wastage is not too big. The danger of routing deaggregation *is*... So I'd suggest another thing: add to this a big warning that this space is not "PI" (whatever that means) and that it is very likely that it will never be routeable world-wide. This should stop people wanting to use such space for something different than an exchange point from applying for it. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From ncc at ripe.net Fri May 4 16:58:29 2001 From: ncc at ripe.net (ncc at ripe.net) Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 16:58:29 +0200 Subject: New Document available: RIPE-219 In-Reply-To: <200105041458.QAA23820@office.ripe.net> References: <200105041458.QAA23820@office.ripe.net> Message-ID: New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new document is available from the RIPE Document Store. Short content description ------------------------- RIPE Document number 219 is the European IP Address Space Request Form. This new document obseletes RIPE-141. Accessing the RIPE Document Store --------------------------------- The RIPE document store is available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-219.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-219.txt plain text version You can also access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW. RIPE-219 is not available from the WWW at this moment, but will be soon, at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-219.html From ncc at ripe.net Fri May 4 16:52:47 2001 From: ncc at ripe.net (ncc at ripe.net) Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 16:52:47 +0200 Subject: New Document available: RIPE-220 In-Reply-To: <200105041452.QAA11314@office.ripe.net> References: <200105041452.QAA11314@office.ripe.net> Message-ID: New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new document is available from the RIPE Document Store. Short content description ------------------------- Supporting Notes for the European IP Address Space Request Form. This document obseletes RIPE-142. Accessing the RIPE Document Store --------------------------------- The RIPE document store is available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-220.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-220.txt plain text version You can also access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW. RIPE-220 is not available from the WWW at this moment, but will be soon, at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-220.html From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Wed May 9 14:23:30 2001 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:23:30 +0200 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <009FBC1C.15D47E56.3@cc.univie.ac.at> >Subj: Re: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points I think there are still quite a few aspects which require forming a consensus, finding a definition or a solution. First of all, talking directly to the set of IXs effectively bypasses the LIR to NCC channel. so, tjis should be defined in the proposal. I can imageing that the IX should either become an Enterprise Registry or work with one of the existing LIRs. =Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 17:51:56 +0200 =From: Gert Doering =To: Mirjam Kuehne =CC: lir-wg at ripe.net =Subject: Re: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points = =Hi, = =On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 05:35:11PM +0200, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: => An Internet Exchange Point was defined as follows: => => 3 or more ASes and 3 or more separate entities attached to a LAN (the => same infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome => to join. = =I suggest to change the wording to "a common layer 2 infrastructure" =- an exchange point might be some distributed thing peering over an =ATM/FR cloud or a SRP/DTP ring, which isn't really a "LAN". Policy =should not be tied to special implementation techniques. From a technical point of view, I fully support your suggestion. From an administrative point of view, I'd re-iterate that nobody is going to be able to define an IX, much like we agreed eventually that we would never succeed in defining an ISP. =Besides this, I like the proposal. = =As discussed with a few people after the WG, it *does* pose the risk of =handing out "lots and lots" of /48s and /64s to people claiming to be =an exchange point. (It's not that hard to get three ASes together =over "some" medium). Talking to folks at one IX (close by :-) and listening to suggestions as to why this approach is useful, I am having problems with the assumption that any such IX would remain confined to a *single* subnet. Also, in keeping with the IAB/IESG recommendation I would propose to simply ask the applicant whether they really intend to run *one* layer-2 subnet (and then assign a /64). (Examples: multicast test-beds, VLANs, host not allowed on DMZs,...) Otherwise assign a /48 - without asking questions about "relations" between IXs. >On the other hand: if we reserve a /35 for that, we have 2^13 /48's >to hand out to "would-be IXes". So the danger of address wastage >is not too big. > >The danger of routing deaggregation *is*... What is going to happen here is the creation of a TWD/PI environment. And I do not claim that this is bad i itself, btw. Just face the fact up front. >So I'd suggest another thing: add to this a big warning that this >space is not "PI" (whatever that means) and that it is very likely that >it will never be routeable world-wide. This should stop people wanting >to use such space for something different than an exchange point from >applying for it. Why do we expect the v6-world to be different from the v4-world, in the sense that it is the ISPs and the folks dealing with the routing layer who decide about acceptiong routes, and *not* the address registries? >Gert Doering > -- NetMaster >-- >SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net >Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 >80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 Wilfried. PS: btw, who is going to do revDNS for those prefixes? _________________________________:_____________________________________ 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From paul.mylotte at bt.com Wed May 9 18:00:44 2001 From: paul.mylotte at bt.com (paul.mylotte at bt.com) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 17:00:44 +0100 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: At the RIPE 39 joint meeting it was clarified that we should cater for the support of both types of IPv6 exchanges, viz: * allocate addresses for IPv6 exchange infrastructure only (no onwards allocation in the manner of a backbone ISP). * allocate a sub TLA to the IPv6 exchange which will then act in the manner of an ISP and allocate downstream. In order to progress this, I would like to propose: * IPv6 exchanges that need addresses for the purpose of internal addressing can apply for the addresses already set aside for this purpose and held by IANA, as per RFC2928 and RFC2450. In this case a /48 allocation will be sufficient. (How IPv6 exchanges should apply for these addresses is out of scope - either direct to IANA, or IANA allocates down to RIRs first). * IPv6 exchanges that plan to onward allocate addresses in the manner of an ISP should apply via the existing mechanism. The existing mechanism is currently being reviewed and this review should take account of any changes necessary to include IPv6 exchanges explicitly desiring addresses for onward allocation as being acceptable candidates for address space. Regards, Paul P. S. Mylotte BTexact Technologies Adastral Park 01473 606333 / + 44 1473 606333 paul.mylotte at bt.com BTexact Technologies is a trademarkof British Telecommunications plc Registered office 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no. 1800000 This electronic message contains information from British Telecommunications plc which may be priveleged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the number or address above) immediately. > -----Original Message----- > From: Mirjam Kuehne [SMTP:mir at ripe.net] > Sent: 07 May 2001 16:35 > To: eix-wg at ripe.net > Cc: ipv6-wg at ripe.net; lir-wg at ripe.net > Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points > > > [Apologies for multiple postings. I suggest to keep the discussion on > as it is related to address allocation policies]. > > > Dear colleagues, > > At RIPE 39 last week in Bologna the issue of IPv6 address assignments > to Internet Exchange Points was discussed (see also my mail from > 24 April 2001 to these lists). > > There was consensus to assign a /64 to an isolated Exchange Point. It > was further suggested to assign the agreed standard assignment size to > a site (currently a /48) to a group of inter-connected Exchange > Points. > > An Internet Exchange Point was defined as follows: > > 3 or more ASes and 3 or more separate entities attached to a LAN (the > same infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome > to join. > > The RIPE NCC proposes to proceed with assignments for Exchange Points > under the above policy. > > Kind Regards, > Mirjam Kuehne > RIPE NCC > > From db-news at ripe.net Thu May 10 13:09:19 2001 From: db-news at ripe.net (DB-News) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 13:09:19 +0200 Subject: RIPE-181 to RPSL Migration; Phase 2. Message-ID: <200105101109.NAA26969@office.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, (Apologies for multiple messages). On and from Monday, 14th May, 2001, shall only accept updates in RPSL format; updates in RIPE-181 format will no longer be accepted. Updates in RIPE-181 format can be sent to , where they will be automatically converted to RPSL format. will continue to accept updates in RPSL format. The update path for the TEST database will also be changed. In summary, from 14th May, 2001: =============================== RIPE Database: - ------------- - updates in RPSL format only - updates in RPSL format only - updates in RIPE-181 format, automatically converted to RP S L format TEST Database: - ------------- - updates in RPSL format only - updates in RPSL format only - updates in RIPE-181 format, automatically converted to RP S L format On Monday, 14th May, 2001, we cannot guarantee that an update message sent to will use a specific update path (RPSL or RIPE-181). Thus, we advise that updates in RIPE-181 format should be sent to and that updates in RPSL format should be sent to . Please note that from Monday, 15th October, 2001, updates in RIPE-181 format will no longer be accepted by the RIPE Database. Further information is available from http://www.ripe.net/rpsl/. If you have any questions, please contact . Regards, A. M. R. Magee - -------------- Database Group RIPE NCC From db-news at ripe.net Thu May 10 12:12:23 2001 From: db-news at ripe.net (db-news at ripe.net) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:12:23 +0200 Subject: RIPE-181 to RPSL Migration; Phase 2. In-Reply-To: <200105101012.MAA18734@office.ripe.net> References: <200105101012.MAA18734@office.ripe.net> Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, (Apologies for multiple messages). On and from Monday, 14th May, 2001, shall only accept updates in RPSL format; updates in RIPE-181 format will no longer be accepted. Updates in RIPE-181 format can be sent to , where they will be automatically converted to RPSL format. will continue to accept updates in RPSL format. The update path for the TEST database will also be changed. In summary, from 14th May, 2001: =============================== RIPE Database: ------------- - updates in RPSL format only - updates in RPSL format only - updates in RIPE-181 format, automatically converted to RPS L format TEST Database: ------------- - updates in RPSL format only - updates in RPSL format only - updates in RIPE-181 format, automatically converted to RPS L format On Monday, 14th May, 2001, we cannot guarantee that an update message sent to will use a specific update path (RPSL or RIPE-181). Thus, we advise that updates in RIPE-181 format should be sent to and that updates in RPSL format should be sent to . Please note that from Monday, 15th October, 2001, updates in RIPE-181 format will no longer be accepted by the RIPE Database. Further information is available from http://www.ripe.net/rpsl/. If you have any questions, please contact . Regards, A. M. R. Magee -------------- Database Group RIPE NCC From netmaster at space.net Thu May 10 14:30:46 2001 From: netmaster at space.net (Gert Doering, Netmaster) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 14:30:46 +0200 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points In-Reply-To: <009FBC1C.15D47E56.3@cc.univie.ac.at>; from woeber@cc.univie.ac.at on Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:23:30PM +0200 References: <009FBC1C.15D47E56.3@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20010510143046.B3919@Space.Net> Hi Wilfried, a few comments: On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:23:30PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: [..] > =On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 05:35:11PM +0200, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: > => An Internet Exchange Point was defined as follows: > => > => 3 or more ASes and 3 or more separate entities attached to a LAN (the > => same infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome > => to join. > = > =I suggest to change the wording to "a common layer 2 infrastructure" > =- an exchange point might be some distributed thing peering over an > =ATM/FR cloud or a SRP/DTP ring, which isn't really a "LAN". Policy > =should not be tied to special implementation techniques. > > From a technical point of view, I fully support your suggestion. > > From an administrative point of view, I'd re-iterate that nobody is > going to be able to define an IX, much like we agreed eventually that we > would never succeed in defining an ISP. Yes, we'll never be able to define with 100% perfection "this is an IX and that is not". With Randys definition, we have something that should suffice to include all forms of IXes, and maybe some other things that are not IXes in the strict sense. This is why I added the remark about "ok, we will waste addresses on 'them' - but there's so much address space, so what". *I* don't think we have a problem here, but yes, we need community consensus here. [..] > Talking to folks at one IX (close by :-) and listening to suggestions as > to why this approach is useful, I am having problems with the assumption > that any such IX would remain confined to a *single* subnet. This was not part of the proposal :-) - it was "if they have only one subnet, give 'em a /64, of not, give 'em a /48". There is a point about interconnection between those subnets - yes, that should not be necessary (if they are at L2 interconnected, one /64 will suffice, if at L3 or not at all, handing out multiple /64s is just not worth the effort - IMHO). [..] > What is going to happen here is the creation of a TWD/PI environment. > And I do not claim that this is bad i itself, btw. > Just face the fact up front. Yes. This is why... > >So I'd suggest another thing: add to this a big warning that this > >space is not "PI" (whatever that means) and that it is very likely that > >it will never be routeable world-wide. This should stop people wanting > >to use such space for something different than an exchange point from > >applying for it. > > Why do we expect the v6-world to be different from the v4-world, in the > sense that it is the ISPs and the folks dealing with the routing layer > who decide about acceptiong routes, and *not* the address registries? There is no difference, but we can avoid making one mistake, that has been mentioned in the "PI" discussion: if a RIR hands out a chunk of addresses, it is kind of "sanctioned" (because what good would that subnet be if not routeable?). Nobody has ever said "because this is official PI, it will work", but people expect it to work nonetheless. So this is why I think the warning label would do good: it might make sure that this is *really* only meant as "multi-site-local" address space and not to be routed on the whole net (which might work, or might not, but it's not meant for that). > PS: btw, who is going to do revDNS for those prefixes? The IX themself - RIPE could delegate RR-DNS at /48 or /64 boundaries. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Thu May 10 15:02:45 2001 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 15:02:45 +0200 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <009FBCEA.BBDA6E86.4@cc.univie.ac.at> Hi Gert! =Hi Wilfried, = =a few comments: = =On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:23:30PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: =[..] => =On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 05:35:11PM +0200, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: => => An Internet Exchange Point was defined as follows: => => => => 3 or more ASes and 3 or more separate entities attached to a LAN (the => => same infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome => => to join. => = => =I suggest to change the wording to "a common layer 2 infrastructure" => =- an exchange point might be some distributed thing peering over an => =ATM/FR cloud or a SRP/DTP ring, which isn't really a "LAN". Policy => =should not be tied to special implementation techniques. => => From a technical point of view, I fully support your suggestion. => => From an administrative point of view, I'd re-iterate that nobody is => going to be able to define an IX, much like we agreed eventually that we => would never succeed in defining an ISP. = =Yes, we'll never be able to define with 100% perfection "this is an IX =and that is not". = =With Randys definition, we have something that should suffice to include =all forms of IXes, and maybe some other things that are not IXes in the =strict sense. This is why I added the remark about "ok, we will waste =addresses on 'them' - but there's so much address space, so what". = =*I* don't think we have a problem here, but yes, we need community =consensus here. = =[..] => Talking to folks at one IX (close by :-) and listening to suggestions as => to why this approach is useful, I am having problems with the assumption => that any such IX would remain confined to a *single* subnet. = =This was not part of the proposal :-) Correct :-) =- it was "if they have only one =subnet, give 'em a /64, of not, give 'em a /48". = =There is a point about interconnection between those subnets - yes, that =should not be necessary (if they are at L2 interconnected, one /64 will =suffice, if at L3 or not at all, handing out multiple /64s is just not =worth the effort - IMHO). What I was referring to was the paragraph in Mirjam's summary to the EIX list: "There was consensus to assign a /64 to an isolated Exchange Point. It was further suggested to assign the agreed standard assignment size to a site (currently a /48) to a group of inter-connected Exchange Points." =[..] => What is going to happen here is the creation of a TWD/PI environment. => And I do not claim that this is bad i itself, btw. => Just face the fact up front. = =Yes. This is why... = => >So I'd suggest another thing: add to this a big warning that this => >space is not "PI" (whatever that means) and that it is very likely that => >it will never be routeable world-wide. This should stop people wanting => >to use such space for something different than an exchange point from => >applying for it. => => Why do we expect the v6-world to be different from the v4-world, in the => sense that it is the ISPs and the folks dealing with the routing layer => who decide about acceptiong routes, and *not* the address registries? = =There is no difference, but we can avoid making one mistake, that has =been mentioned in the "PI" discussion: if a RIR hands out a chunk of =addresses, it is kind of "sanctioned" (because what good would that =subnet be if not routeable?). Nobody has ever said "because this is =official PI, it will work", but people expect it to work nonetheless. = =So this is why I think the warning label would do good: it might make =sure that this is *really* only meant as "multi-site-local" address =space and not to be routed on the whole net (which might work, or might =not, but it's not meant for that). = => PS: btw, who is going to do revDNS for those prefixes? = =The IX themself 'course - but then their (IPv6) prefix must be routed, or they have to obtain/use addresses from (one of) their members (which sounds like the thing they want to avoid in the first place?) or buy connectivity or service form somewhere. Can be done, of course! - RIPE could delegate RR-DNS at /48 or /64 boundaries. Yes, they probably could. But do they want to? And potentially doing it for free? =Gert Doering = -- NetMaster =-- =SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net =Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 =80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 Wilfried. From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 15:24:52 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 06:24:52 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points In-Reply-To: <009FBCEA.BBDA6E86.4@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: > =There is no difference, but we can avoid making one mistake, that has > =been mentioned in the "PI" discussion: if a RIR hands out a chunk of > =addresses, it is kind of "sanctioned" (because what good would that > =subnet be if not routeable?). > => PS: btw, who is going to do revDNS for those prefixes? > = > =The IX themself > > 'course - but then their (IPv6) prefix must be routed, or they have to > obtain/use addresses from (one of) their members (which sounds like the > thing they want to avoid in the first place?) or buy connectivity or > service form somewhere. Can be done, of course! Please correct me if I'm wrong, but since when do exchange points route their address space across the public internet? Exchange Points petitioning ARIN under the micro-allocation policy are required to agree *not* to route their IP address space across the public internet. Exchange points need the ability to petition RIRs directly for address space not for routability, but to ensure uniqueness. /david From djp at djp.net Thu May 10 15:23:32 2001 From: djp at djp.net (Dave Pratt) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 15:23:32 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points In-Reply-To: <009FBCEA.BBDA6E86.4@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: Hiya all, I disagree with this: "There was consensus to assign a /64 to an isolated Exchange Point. It was further suggested to assign the agreed standard assignment size to a site (currently a /48) to a group of inter-connected Exchange Points." This makes no sense to me. They are only going to come back and say they need another network (test equipment, multicast, etc...), and then we have to start carrying two/three/four... prefixes. Even after 80 bits of the 128 bit address range have been wasted, I repeat that IPv6 addresses are NOT IN SHORT SUPPLY and that Agregation and Prefix conservation (with registration and documentation) should be our sole concern except in completely crazy cases. Or does someone think there may really be around 1,000,000,000,000,000 entities pretending to be internet exchanges ? ---- Seperate response: David R Huberman wrote: ->Exchange points need the ability to petition RIRs directly for address ->space not for routability, but to ensure uniqueness. I think exchange point infrastructure - web servers,monitoring,test traffic boxes, etc. need to be multihomed as well as globally unique. Cheers Dave Pratt From netmaster at space.net Thu May 10 15:49:13 2001 From: netmaster at space.net (Gert Doering, Netmaster) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 15:49:13 +0200 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points In-Reply-To: <009FBCEA.BBDA6E86.4@cc.univie.ac.at>; from woeber@cc.univie.ac.at on Thu, May 10, 2001 at 03:02:45PM +0200 References: <009FBCEA.BBDA6E86.4@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 03:02:45PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > => PS: btw, who is going to do revDNS for those prefixes? > = > =The IX themself > > 'course - but then their (IPv6) prefix must be routed, or they have to > obtain/use addresses from (one of) their members (which sounds like the > thing they want to avoid in the first place?) or buy connectivity or > service form somewhere. Can be done, of course! Indeed, good point. But they need connectivity for things like member mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the same IP prefix. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points In-Reply-To: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:28:08 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:28:08 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: > ->Exchange points need the ability to petition RIRs directly for address > ->space not for routability, but to ensure uniqueness. > > I think exchange point infrastructure - web servers,monitoring,test traffic > boxes, etc. need to be multihomed as well as globally unique. I don't understand. An exchange point, as I think about well-known implementations, is simply a means by which to organize participants in a common place. It's an island to which multiple participants connect with the explicit goal of interconnecting to one another. Exchange point address space should only be used to establish those interconnections with the routers - not for any ancillary services the exchange point might provide that require internet connectivity. Such services should *not* be part of any exchange point address policy considered by LIR-WG, imo. /david From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points In-Reply-To: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> Message-ID: Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From arjan at inventionz.org Thu May 10 21:03:52 2001 From: arjan at inventionz.org (Arjan) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:03:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101906.XAA94386@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman To: <200105101738.VAA93346 at phil.wplus.net> Euhm, can we fix this ? Whatever is happening ? I think 7 copies is enough... Thanks :) On Thu, 10 May 2001 at 10:25 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: postmaster1 at wplus.net > > > To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > > > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > > I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert > said it far better than I did! > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > /david > > -- GE d- s++:++ a- C+++$ U+ P+ L- E---- W- N++ o++++ w O- M-- PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+@ 5 X+ R* tv+ b- G e h r- y++ From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 22:54:12 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:54:12 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange > participants and space utilized for other purposes. we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. randy From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 10 19:25:27 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:25:27 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <200105101738.VAA93346@phil.wplus.net> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: <20010510154913.C3919 at Space.Net> > But they need connectivity for things like member > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > same IP prefix. I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert said it far better than I did! For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange participants and space utilized for other purposes. /david From ripe-mailing-lists at ssd.axu.tm Fri May 11 10:05:50 2001 From: ripe-mailing-lists at ssd.axu.tm (Aleksi Suhonen) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 11:05:50 +0300 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20010511080555.E5E481A2BF@tikka.axu.tm> Hello, Quote from David R Huberman: } Exchange point address space should only be used to establish those } interconnections with the routers - not for any ancillary services the } exchange point might provide that require internet connectivity. Such } services should *not* be part of any exchange point address policy } considered by LIR-WG, imo. I agree with this and with Randy's comment that an exchange point can use someone else's address space for the extra services, but I also see a potential problem with it: They will still want to multihome the networks they use for those services anyway for a plethora of reasons. In my opinion something like a /60 would be a reasonable tradeoff. -- Aleksi Suhonen From michael.hallgren at Teleglobe.com Fri May 11 10:25:43 2001 From: michael.hallgren at Teleglobe.com (Hallgren, Michael) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 09:25:43 +0100 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] > Envoy? : jeudi 10 mai 2001 22:54 > ? : David R Huberman > Cc : Gert Doering, Netmaster; Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet; > lir-wg at ripe.net > Objet : Re: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points > > > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must > differentiate between > > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection > of exchange > > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. > idem :) mh > randy > -- Michael Hallgren, Inet Eng., Teleglobe, MH2198-RIPE From michael.hallgren at Teleglobe.com Fri May 11 10:25:43 2001 From: michael.hallgren at Teleglobe.com (Hallgren, Michael) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 09:25:43 +0100 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: Randy Bush > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] > Envoy? : jeudi 10 mai 2001 22:54 > ? : David R Huberman > Cc : Gert Doering, Netmaster; Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet; > lir-wg at ripe.net > Objet : Re: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points > > > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must > differentiate between > > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection > of exchange > > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. > idem :) mh > randy > -- Michael Hallgren, Inet Eng., Teleglobe, MH2198-RIPE From michael.hallgren at Teleglobe.com Fri May 11 10:25:43 2001 From: michael.hallgren at Teleglobe.com (Hallgren, Michael) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 09:25:43 +0100 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: Randy Bush > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] > Envoy? : jeudi 10 mai 2001 22:54 > ? : David R Huberman > Cc : Gert Doering, Netmaster; Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet; > lir-wg at ripe.net > Objet : Re: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points > > > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must > differentiate between > > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection > of exchange > > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. > idem :) mh > randy > -- Michael Hallgren, Inet Eng., Teleglobe, MH2198-RIPE From michael.hallgren at Teleglobe.com Fri May 11 10:25:43 2001 From: michael.hallgren at Teleglobe.com (Hallgren, Michael) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 09:25:43 +0100 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: Randy Bush > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] > Envoy? : jeudi 10 mai 2001 22:54 > ? : David R Huberman > Cc : Gert Doering, Netmaster; Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet; > lir-wg at ripe.net > Objet : Re: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points > > > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must > differentiate between > > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection > of exchange > > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. > idem :) mh > randy > -- Michael Hallgren, Inet Eng., Teleglobe, MH2198-RIPE From michael.hallgren at Teleglobe.com Fri May 11 10:25:43 2001 From: michael.hallgren at Teleglobe.com (Hallgren, Michael) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 09:25:43 +0100 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1 at wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: Randy Bush > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] > Envoy? : jeudi 10 mai 2001 22:54 > ? : David R Huberman > Cc : Gert Doering, Netmaster; Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet; > lir-wg at ripe.net > Objet : Re: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points > > > > For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must > differentiate between > > address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection > of exchange > > participants and space utilized for other purposes. > > we will gladly give them address space when they buy transit. > idem :) mh > randy > -- Michael Hallgren, Inet Eng., Teleglobe, MH2198-RIPE From hank at att.net.il Fri May 11 10:36:49 2001 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:36:49 +0200 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points In-Reply-To: References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010511103545.00ac9160@max.ibm.net.il> At 10:25 10/05/01 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > >I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert >said it far better than I did! > >For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between >address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange >participants and space utilized for other purposes. What about a route reflector run at an exchange point with a LG to check things out? Wouldn't a globally routable IP address be called for in regards to the LG? -Hank >/david From netmaster at space.net Fri May 11 10:07:57 2001 From: netmaster at space.net (Gert Doering, Netmaster) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:07:57 +0200 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010511103545.00ac9160@max.ibm.net.il>; from hank@att.net.il on Fri, May 11, 2001 at 10:36:49AM +0200 References: <20010510154913.C3919@Space.Net> <4.3.2.7.2.20010511103545.00ac9160@max.ibm.net.il> Message-ID: <20010511100757.D3919@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 10:36:49AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > What about a route reflector run at an exchange point with a LG to check > things out? Wouldn't a globally routable IP address be called for in > regards to the LG? I would say "no" - who would use the looking glass? The connected ISPs, or their customers, and they have to route the IX network anyway (but only internally). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From djp at djp.net Fri May 11 10:41:26 2001 From: djp at djp.net (Dave Pratt) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:41:26 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for EP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hiya, I've removed lir-wg at gblx.net from the distribution !!! Please see below. On Thu, 10 May 2001, David R Huberman wrote: ->> ->Exchange points need the ability to petition RIRs directly for address ->> ->space not for routability, but to ensure uniqueness. ->> ->> I think exchange point infrastructure - web servers,monitoring,test traffic ->> boxes, etc. need to be multihomed as well as globally unique. -> ->I don't understand. An exchange point, as I think about well-known ->implementations, is simply a means by which to organize participants in a ->common place. It's an island to which multiple participants connect with ->the explicit goal of interconnecting to one another. -> ->Exchange point address space should only be used to establish those ->interconnections with the routers - not for any ancillary services the ->exchange point might provide that require internet connectivity. Such ->services should *not* be part of any exchange point address policy ->considered by LIR-WG, imo. -> ->/david Looking at a couple of professionally run exchanges in Europe, I disagree. Exchange support infrastructure needs to be multihomed, and as Randy so succinctly pointed out, this cannot be achieved through a transit provider (or with their addresses). I would see an exchange being in control of a block (at least /48, although a normal LIR assignment would make more sense to me to ensure routability). This block would be globally routable and provide connectivity to support infrastructure. A more specific prefix of this could then be used for the exchange LAN itself. If the exchange requires two completely independent prefixes then I would also support that option. IPv6 addresses are not in short supply - a /60 compromise only complicates things and is against the "/48 policy". We could expand this discussion to cover multihoming in general - why would anyone switch to IPv6 from IPv4 if it means they can no longer multihome like they did in IPv4. Cheers Dave From huberman at gblx.net Fri May 11 17:27:56 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 08:27:56 -0700 (MST) Subject: IPv6 addresses for EP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I've removed lir-wg at gblx.net from the distribution !!! The one message with lir-wg at gblx.net only went to you, Dave. It didn't go to the list :> The problems we're seeing appear to be faulty listserv software at RIPE, imo. > Looking at a couple of professionally run exchanges in Europe, I disagree. > > Exchange support infrastructure needs to be multihomed, and as Randy so > succinctly pointed out, this cannot be achieved through a transit provider > (or with their addresses). Perhaps I missed that argument by Randy. Could you quote the relevant portions? As you term "Exchange support infrastructure", I reiterate this has nothing to do whatsoever with exchange points needing address space to establish themselves. There are/should be special assignment policies to networks which play a sufficiently important role to internet infrastructure. Exchange points have been widely-accepted as one such sufficiently important role. The "critical" role they play is to encourage the interconnection of operational networks to improve routing. As such, as a point of interconnection for diverse networks, exchange points must have globally unique address space in their core. This address space is solely for the interconnection of participants. Additional activities (support activities) of an exchange point operator must be considered separately from the activity of interconnecting participants. Mail servers, Hank's looking glasses, traffic measurements - all these are perfectly well and good, but are activities which I believe can be well-supported using upstream space. I do not believe these activites require RIR-assigned address space. That said, if Randy really did argue they do, I would like to be reminded of the argument. > I would see an exchange being in control of a block (at least /48, although a > normal LIR assignment would make more sense to me to ensure routability). This > block would be globally routable and provide connectivity to support > infrastructure. Operators petitioning the RIPE NCC under an exchange point policy should be able to define their own needs. Any policy that develops out of this discussion should not specify address assignment sizes - let's put the onus on both the petitioner and the RIPE NCC to determine appropriately-sized assignments. > We could expand this discussion to cover multihoming in general - why would > anyone switch to IPv6 from IPv4 if it means they can no longer multihome like > they did in IPv4. No really - let's not expand this discussion to cover IPv6 multihoming. Please. /david *--------------------------------* | Global Crossing IP Engineering | | Manager, Global IP Addressing | | TEL: (908) 720-6182 | | FAX: (703) 464-0802 | *--------------------------------* From hph at online.no Fri May 11 18:21:28 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:21:28 +0200 Subject: IPv6 addresses for EP or why are exhanges so special ? References: Message-ID: <002101c0da36$6eab8ec0$0400000a@hph> I have tried to follow this discussion, and stumbeled over a fundamental question when trying to reason about this: * why are exchange points so special ? It seems to me that shared medium exchange points historicaly have used a single subnet to interconnect. Generaly it simplifies configuration and eases operations to have a single logical interface on the physical interface connected to the shared medium. But in order to excange traffic with other partners at the exchange one needs to establish "pont to point" BGP peerings. So there is no longer any significant configuirational advantage in having all the boxes I want to talk to on a single subnet (I still need to figure out how to talk to the others by establishing BGP peerings.) On the operational side, at least back when I was directly involved in such, it would actualy be very convenient to have logical point to point links with all my peering partners in order to better diagnose and measure traffic flows and flaws. If this is the case, the IP addresses for the logical point to point links across the exchange would best be implementedwith IP addresses from any of the providers, or perhaps even the IPv6 equivalent of link local addresses. I would be interested to hear comments on this approach, because if this model makes senseto implement, it would probably make sense to document this as some kind of "best current practice" for IP v6 exchanges in order to make sure that the router vendors implements the proper tools to make this easy to configure. Looking forward to hear others opinions on this. -hph From cjw at remarque.org Fri May 11 19:52:23 2001 From: cjw at remarque.org (Cathy Wittbrodt) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:52:23 -0700 Subject: IPv6 addresses for EP or why are exhanges so special ? In-Reply-To: Message from "Hans Petter Holen" of "Fri, 11 May 2001 18:21:28 +0200." <002101c0da36$6eab8ec0$0400000a@hph> Message-ID: <200105111752.KAA04786@pox.remarque.org> HPH, The other reason why there is an allocation policy for exchange points (at least in the ARIN region) is because the folks who are building exchange points may not have enough of them to justify the minimum allocation. It seemed reasonable that they would need provider independent space, however, so they can get it with the provisions written in the policy. If you think about a neutral exchange point provider who's business is to connect up providers to peer, etc, that exchange point provider may want or need to supply the IP addresses for that exchange point. They're providing a service and may want to provide the address space as well. I can't speak for the exchange providers, but setting up p2p vlans or whatever for folks connected to the same ethernet switch may be time consuming and also can waste quite a bit of address space (if you're using /30s for p2p links and not /31s, per the new yet unimplemented draft). I hope this helps! ---CJ From: "Hans Petter Holen" Subject: IPv6 addresses for EP or why are exhanges so special ? I have tried to follow this discussion, and stumbeled over a fundamental question when trying to reason about this: * why are exchange points so special ? It seems to me that shared medium exchange points historicaly have used a single subnet to interconnect. Generaly it simplifies configuration and eases operations to have a single logical interface on the physical interface connected to the shared medium. But in order to excange traffic with other partners at the exchange one needs to establish "pont to point" BGP peerings. So there is no longer any significant configuirational advantage in having all the boxes I want to talk to on a single subnet (I still need to figure out how to talk to the others by establishing BGP peerings.) On the operational side, at least back when I was directly involved in such, it would actualy be very convenient to have logical point to point links with all my peering partners in order to better diagnose and measure traffic flows and flaws. If this is the case, the IP addresses for the logical point to point links across the exchange would best be implementedwith IP addresses from any of the providers, or perhaps even the IPv6 equivalent of link local addresses. I would be interested to hear comments on this approach, because if this model makes senseto implement, it would probably make sense to document this as some kind of "best current practice" for IP v6 exchanges in order to make sure that the router vendors implements the proper tools to make this easy to configure. Looking forward to hear others opinions on this. -hph From hph at online.no Fri May 11 20:33:47 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 20:33:47 +0200 Subject: IPv6 addresses for EP or why are exhanges so special ? References: <002101c0da36$6eab8ec0$0400000a@hph> <20010511190445J.he@runit.no> Message-ID: <00f801c0da48$eb3ae5a0$0400000a@hph> Havard Eidnes writes: > o Addresses for the exchange point medium itself (usually a > layer-two network of some sort) I agree, this was the discussion i added to. >For the exchange point medium itself, if the medium is a "multiple- >access broadcast network" it *is* actually a benefit to use the >"natural" way to number such networks, i.e. use a single IP subnet, >as in that case you can use BGP in the "standard configuration". I agree that this has been the simple way of doing things in routers as we know them today. >Starting to muddle with secondary IP addresses and run "multiple >subnet on the same layer-two medium" when you in reality don't have >to, just causes extra complications, and should therefore be >avoided. I would again agree with you if I were discussing how to do this in current implementations. But my thinking was more on the lines: how would the ideal solution look if I didn't have the constraints of the current implementations. And since we are rather early in implementation of v6 based technology it may still be time to engineer more convenient solutions. Such an implementation should also give me SNMP access to relevant counters on such an interface. But again, I realise, this it not how the current implementations are, and mabe such suggestions should better be discussed in some IETF wg, or directy with vendors. >If your exchange point is implemented using a "multiple- >access non-broadcast network" of some sort, the multiple point-to- >point links, each with their own subnet out of a connected peer's >address block makes sense. Yes indeed. >Some have said that the IP network used to number the exchange >itself does not have to be announced on the global level. However, >it would appear that practices vary quite widely on this point for >IPv4, and many are announced globally. You mention the possible use >of link-local addresses; I wonder if that won't make it difficult to >handle such things as ICMP; it'll probably be met with similar >issues as folks who use RFC 1918 addresses in today's network (e.g. >breaking Path MTU discovery because RFC 1918-originated datagrams >are often summarily dropped on the floor). I have just been reminded that at least some routers can be configured how to reply to ICMP requests, so this may solve that address. Link local addresses may actualy not be a good idea since I probably would have to carry my peers IP address in my internal routing tables and with multiple peerings I need to ensure uniqueness at least within my network. Maybe the soulution would be that all routers had a loopback like interface with a suitably sized subnet set aside, and that you could trough a DHCP like auto configure this end and discover the remote AS number. The only other thing needed to be added would be the routing policy... >I may have misunderstood something fundamental, but I also don't >quite know what's so bad with using IP(v4) addresses out of a >provider's block to number the exchange point medium. Technicaly I don't think there are any disadvantages in doing this. Politicaly or emotionaly I think there are several reasons: * if the provider who donated the IP addresses in the first case deceides to disconnect from the exchange, one may want to renumber the exchange * I have repeatedly heard (at RIPE and ARIN meetings) that it is bad practice to advertise more specific routes out of a provider block. (this tends to come up more in multihoming discussions than in IX discussions tough) It seems to me that there is a notion that if somebody else announces a more specific route as an alternative path to parts of your address space it hurts in some way ("I dont allow others to punch holes in my blocks"). My personal opinion is the quite the oposite, it is better (as in more socialy acceptable to the global internet) to do multi homing with address space from one of the providers, as this allows other to save router resources with prefix length filters without risking loosing connectivity to the multi-homed networks. >As for the "service network", it will of course need global >connectivity, and thus has to get transit service from one or more >ISPs. What I don't understand is why this service network needs to >be so special up and above other normal customers when it comes to >IP address assignment? Well, if it is "critical internet infrastructure" it requires maximum connectivity. Some tend to argue that that is best taken care of trough a separate entry in the routing table. >Creating these "special cases" as exceptions to the rules just opens >up the floor for other folks who will stand up and say "My Cause is >Extremely Worthy too, so I want some too under those conditions!!". I could not agree more. -hph From randy at psg.com Sat May 12 04:06:31 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 02:06:31 +0000 Subject: IPv6 addresses for EP References: Message-ID: >> Exchange support infrastructure needs to be multihomed, and as Randy so >> succinctly pointed out, this cannot be achieved through a transit provider >> (or with their addresses). > Perhaps I missed that argument by Randy. it would have been easy to, as i made the opposite argument. randy From db-news at ripe.net Thu May 10 13:09:19 2001 From: db-news at ripe.net (DB-News) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 13:09:19 +0200 Subject: RIPE-181 to RPSL Migration; Phase 2. Message-ID: <200105101109.NAA26969@office.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, (Apologies for multiple messages). On and from Monday, 14th May, 2001, shall only accept updates in RPSL format; updates in RIPE-181 format will no longer be accepted. Updates in RIPE-181 format can be sent to , where they will be automatically converted to RPSL format. will continue to accept updates in RPSL format. The update path for the TEST database will also be changed. In summary, from 14th May, 2001: =============================== RIPE Database: - ------------- - updates in RPSL format only - updates in RPSL format only - updates in RIPE-181 format, automatically converted to RP S L format TEST Database: - ------------- - updates in RPSL format only - updates in RPSL format only - updates in RIPE-181 format, automatically converted to RP S L format On Monday, 14th May, 2001, we cannot guarantee that an update message sent to will use a specific update path (RPSL or RIPE-181). Thus, we advise that updates in RIPE-181 format should be sent to and that updates in RPSL format should be sent to . Please note that from Monday, 15th October, 2001, updates in RIPE-181 format will no longer be accepted by the RIPE Database. Further information is available from http://www.ripe.net/rpsl/. If you have any questions, please contact . Regards, A. M. R. Magee - -------------- Database Group RIPE NCC From db-news at ripe.net Mon May 14 13:17:22 2001 From: db-news at ripe.net (DB-News) Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 13:17:22 +0200 Subject: RIPE-181 to RPSL Migration; Completed switch-over to phase 2 Message-ID: <200105141117.NAA04649@x47.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, (Apologies for multiple messages). This is to announce that we have completed the phase 1 of migration. Starting from today, Monday, 14th May, 2001, shall only accept updates in RPSL format; updates in RIPE-181 format will no longer be accepted. Updates in RIPE-181 format can be sent to , where they will be automatically converted to RPSL format. will continue to accept updates in RPSL format. The update path for the TEST database has also been changed. In summary, from 14th May, 2001: =============================== RIPE Database: ------------- - updates in RPSL format only - updates in RPSL format only - updates in RIPE-181 format, automatically converted to RPSL format TEST Database: ------------- - updates in RPSL format only - updates in RPSL format only - updates in RIPE-181 format, automatically converted to RPSL format Please note that from Monday, 15th October, 2001, updates in RIPE-181 format will no longer be accepted by the RIPE Database. Further information is available from http://www.ripe.net/rpsl/. If you have any questions, please contact . Regards, Engin Gunduz ____________________________ RIPE Database Administration. From hank at att.net.il Fri May 11 10:36:49 2001 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:36:49 +0200 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010511103545.00ac9160@max.ibm.net.il> To: lists-lir-wg-out at lists.ripe.net To: David R Huberman , "Gert Doering, Netmaster" To: At 10:25 10/05/01 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > > But they need connectivity for things like member > > mailing lists, www servers etc. anyway - which does not mean that those > > services have to (or even "should") be located at the IX itself, in the > > same IP prefix. > >I should have read this before I responded to Dave Pratt's email - Gert >said it far better than I did! > >For the purposes of this policy discussion, we must differentiate between >address space utilized explicitly for the interconnection of exchange >participants and space utilized for other purposes. What about a route reflector run at an exchange point with a LG to check things out? Wouldn't a globally routable IP address be called for in regards to the LG? -Hank >/david From he at runit.no Fri May 11 19:04:45 2001 From: he at runit.no (Havard Eidnes) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 19:04:45 +0200 Subject: IPv6 addresses for EP or why are exhanges so special ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 May 2001 18:21:28 +0200" <002101c0da36$6eab8ec0$0400000a@hph> References: <002101c0da36$6eab8ec0$0400000a@hph> Message-ID: <20010511190445J.he@runit.no> > I have tried to follow this discussion, and stumbeled over a > fundamental question when trying to reason about this: > > * why are exchange points so special? My take on this is that "they are not". But before plunging on, I would find it useful to distinguish between the two portions that have been discussed so far: o Addresses for the exchange point medium itself (usually a layer-two network of some sort) o Addresses for a "service network", probably used by the organization which runs the exchange point and which can provide additional common services of interest to the connected networks. I'll also mention that my experience on the matter is based on IPv4, so if there are additional quirks that are specific to IPv6 that I don't know about, you'll have to excuse me. For the exchange point medium itself, if the medium is a "multiple- access broadcast network" it *is* actually a benefit to use the "natural" way to number such networks, i.e. use a single IP subnet, as in that case you can use BGP in the "standard configuration". Starting to muddle with secondary IP addresses and run "multiple subnet on the same layer-two medium" when you in reality don't have to, just causes extra complications, and should therefore be avoided. If your exchange point is implemented using a "multiple- access non-broadcast network" of some sort, the multiple point-to- point links, each with their own subnet out of a connected peer's address block makes sense. Some have said that the IP network used to number the exchange itself does not have to be announced on the global level. However, it would appear that practices vary quite widely on this point for IPv4, and many are announced globally. You mention the possible use of link-local addresses; I wonder if that won't make it difficult to handle such things as ICMP; it'll probably be met with similar issues as folks who use RFC 1918 addresses in today's network (e.g. breaking Path MTU discovery because RFC 1918-originated datagrams are often summarily dropped on the floor). I may have misunderstood something fundamental, but I also don't quite know what's so bad with using IP(v4) addresses out of a provider's block to number the exchange point medium. As for the "service network", it will of course need global connectivity, and thus has to get transit service from one or more ISPs. What I don't understand is why this service network needs to be so special up and above other normal customers when it comes to IP address assignment? Creating these "special cases" as exceptions to the rules just opens up the floor for other folks who will stand up and say "My Cause is Extremely Worthy too, so I want some too under those conditions!!". Best regards, - H?vard From oppermann at telehouse.ch Fri May 11 20:52:19 2001 From: oppermann at telehouse.ch (Andre Oppermann) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 20:52:19 +0200 Subject: IPv6 addresses for EP or why are exhanges so special ? References: <002101c0da36$6eab8ec0$0400000a@hph> Message-ID: <3AFC34E3.5A816A2C@telehouse.ch> Hans Petter, before you continue to create confusion in this thread please do me and us a favor and read the relevant RFC's on BGP4. Especially read the sections about EBGP, IBGP and multi-hop EBGP and all their implications. If you have done so, either all the questions and points you raise here are answered or I'm willing to assist you in any matter. RFC1771, RFC1772, RFC1773, RFC1774 plus relevant Cisco Press Literature. Thank you -- Andre Oppermann TIX Project Manager Hans Petter Holen wrote: > > I have tried to follow this discussion, and stumbeled over a fundamental > question when trying to reason about this: > * why are exchange points so special ? > > It seems to me that shared medium exchange points historicaly have used a > single subnet to interconnect. Generaly it simplifies configuration and > eases operations to have a single logical interface on the physical > interface connected to the shared medium. > > But in order to excange traffic with other partners at the exchange one > needs to establish "pont to point" BGP peerings. So there is no longer any > significant configuirational advantage in having all the boxes I want to > talk to on a single subnet (I still need to figure out how to talk to the > others by establishing BGP peerings.) > > On the operational side, at least back when I was directly involved in such, > it would actualy be very convenient to have logical point to point links > with all my peering partners in order to better diagnose and measure traffic > flows and flaws. > > If this is the case, the IP addresses for the logical point to point links > across the exchange would best be implementedwith IP addresses from any of > the providers, or perhaps even the IPv6 equivalent of link local addresses. > > I would be interested to hear comments on this approach, because if this > model makes senseto implement, it would probably make sense to document this > as some kind of "best current practice" for IP v6 exchanges in order to make > sure that the router vendors implements the proper tools to make this easy > to configure. > > Looking forward to hear others opinions on this. > > -hph From david at IPRG.nokia.com Tue May 15 03:02:46 2001 From: david at IPRG.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 18:02:46 -0700 Subject: IPv6 addresses for Exchange Points In-Reply-To: <200105071535.RAA02910@x30.ripe.net> References: <200105071535.RAA02910@x30.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20010514180246.D17216@iprg.nokia.com> Mirjam, Just for the record, I think that a few statements in your mail need a correction. On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 05:35:11PM +0200, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: > > [Apologies for multiple postings. I suggest to keep the discussion on > as it is related to address allocation policies]. > > Dear colleagues, > > At RIPE 39 last week in Bologna the issue of IPv6 address assignments > to Internet Exchange Points was discussed (see also my mail from > 24 April 2001 to these lists). > > There was consensus to assign a /64 to an isolated Exchange Point. It > was further suggested to assign the agreed standard assignment size to > a site (currently a /48) to a group of inter-connected Exchange > Points. > > An Internet Exchange Point was defined as follows: > > 3 or more ASes and 3 or more separate entities attached to a LAN (the > same infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome > to join. I don't think both paragraphs are a good summary of our discussion. There was no consensus on /64 assignments to isolated Exchange Points, neither was there a consensus on which definition to use for an (isolated) exchange point. We had consensus that more discussion was needed, that you and Randy would post a proposal for further discusion on the topic, and that other proposals were certainly welcome too. I think that the discussion on the lir-wg list clearly proofs that there was no consensus yet. Your mail certainly is a nice starting point for this discussion. > The RIPE NCC proposes to proceed with assignments for Exchange Points > under the above policy. While I would like to see a quick resolution to this problem, I don't think the current proposal is detailed enough for people to make a decision for or against the proposal. We first need to answer a couple of more fundamental questions (in order of importance): 1) are we going to do special purpose ipv6 allocations in the first place ?!? 2) what is the intended use of the address space for exchange points ?!? 3) how do we define an exchange point 4) what is the size of the actual allocation [ this should actually be the easiest question to answer since we are not as constrained as with ipv4 address space :-) ] I have explicitly not answered those questions myself (though I obviously have my own opinion :-)) - did I miss any other questions ?!? And, yes we can do the further discussion on the lir-wg list. David K. --- From michael.hallgren at Teleglobe.com Wed May 16 13:20:29 2001 From: michael.hallgren at Teleglobe.com (Hallgren, Michael) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:20:29 +0100 Subject: IPv6 addresses for EP or why are exhanges so special ? Message-ID: > > > > I have tried to follow this discussion, and stumbeled over a > > fundamental question when trying to reason about this: > > > > * why are exchange points so special? > > My take on this is that "they are not". > > But before plunging on, I would find it useful to distinguish > between the two portions that have been discussed so far: > > o Addresses for the exchange point medium itself (usually a > layer-two network of some sort) > > o Addresses for a "service network", probably used by the > organization which runs the exchange point and which can > provide additional common services of interest to the > connected networks. > > I'll also mention that my experience on the matter is based on > IPv4, so if there are additional quirks that are specific to IPv6 > that I don't know about, you'll have to excuse me. > > For the exchange point medium itself, if the medium is a "multiple- > access broadcast network" it *is* actually a benefit to use the > "natural" way to number such networks, i.e. use a single IP subnet, > as in that case you can use BGP in the "standard configuration". > Starting to muddle with secondary IP addresses and run "multiple > subnet on the same layer-two medium" when you in reality don't have > to, just causes extra complications, and should therefore be > avoided. If your exchange point is implemented using a "multiple- > access non-broadcast network" of some sort, the multiple point-to- > point links, each with their own subnet out of a connected peer's > address block makes sense. > I'm of the same opinion. > Some have said that the IP network used to number the exchange > itself does not have to be announced on the global level. However, > it would appear that practices vary quite widely on this point for > IPv4, and many are announced globally. You mention the possible use > of link-local addresses; I wonder if that won't make it difficult to > handle such things as ICMP; it'll probably be met with similar > issues as folks who use RFC 1918 addresses in today's network (e.g. > breaking Path MTU discovery because RFC 1918-originated datagrams > are often summarily dropped on the floor). > I fear that as well. Of course, however, it's a question of being smallest MTU on path - but for avoiding such potential problems... > I may have misunderstood something fundamental, but I also don't > quite know what's so bad with using IP(v4) addresses out of a > provider's block to number the exchange point medium. > > > As for the "service network", it will of course need global > connectivity, and thus has to get transit service from one or more > ISPs. What I don't understand is why this service network needs to > be so special up and above other normal customers when it comes to > IP address assignment? > Depending on how transit / co-location is provided, yes. Hrm,... maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right... but couldn't suitable PI disjunct to IX infra space (and/or close segment) be a choice as well? Thoughts? Kind regards Michael > > Creating these "special cases" as exceptions to the rules just opens > up the floor for other folks who will stand up and say "My Cause is > Extremely Worthy too, so I want some too under those conditions!!". > > > Best regards, > > - H?vard > From John.Wells at inria.fr Wed May 16 14:52:07 2001 From: John.Wells at inria.fr (John Wells) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:52:07 +0200 Subject: [pekkas@netcore.fi: RIR ISP to end-user address allocation policy?] Message-ID: <20010516145207.D659@mansoun.planete6.fr> Here's a message from the IPv6 WG listserv. This should start some discussion.. John -- John WELLS INRIA Rh?ne-Alpes ?quipe Plan?te - ENSIMAG 3A/T?l?comm et R?seaux Virginia Tech MS/Computer Engineering - Networking and Visualization Lab Cl? public: finger wells at mansoun.inrialpes.fr -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Pekka Savola Subject: RIR ISP to end-user address allocation policy? Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:56:54 +0300 (EEST) Size: 4881 URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 244 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gert at space.net Wed May 16 14:54:30 2001 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:54:30 +0200 Subject: [pekkas@netcore.fi: RIR ISP to end-user address allocation policy?] In-Reply-To: <20010516145207.D659@mansoun.planete6.fr>; from John.Wells@inria.fr on Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:52:07PM +0200 References: <20010516145207.D659@mansoun.planete6.fr> Message-ID: <20010516145430.U36202@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:52:07PM +0200, John Wells wrote: > Here's a message from the IPv6 WG listserv. This should start some > discussion.. Why? [..] > Hello all, > > In a very recent RIPE meeting 1st May, Mirjam K|hne and Randy Bush presented > the following on on IPv6 Address allocation policies: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/ipv6develop/ > > Among others, on slide 8, "ISP to Customer" there is: > > --- > * IAB/IESG recommended /48. > * Use a /128 where it is absolutely known that one and only one device is > required, e.g. dialup [<--!!!!!!!] > * Use a /64 when sure net will not be subnetted, e.g. a mobile phone given > 802.11, bluetooth, etc. > --- > > I find this thinking, or at least the examples very flawed. > > Anyone want to start implementing NATv6 for people whose ISP refuses to > give enough addresses to you can't (sub)network your home? The wording is perfectly clear: if you have more than one device, the ISP MUST give you a /64 (under that policy). If you have more than one subnet, the ISP MUST give you a /48. [..] Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From pekkas at netcore.fi Wed May 16 15:11:01 2001 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:11:01 +0300 (EEST) Subject: [pekkas@netcore.fi: RIR ISP to end-user address allocation policy?] In-Reply-To: <20010516145430.U36202@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 May 2001, Gert Doering wrote: [snip] > > --- > > * IAB/IESG recommended /48. > > * Use a /128 where it is absolutely known that one and only one device is > > required, e.g. dialup [<--!!!!!!!] > > * Use a /64 when sure net will not be subnetted, e.g. a mobile phone given > > 802.11, bluetooth, etc. > > --- > > > > I find this thinking, or at least the examples very flawed. > > > > Anyone want to start implementing NATv6 for people whose ISP refuses to > > give enough addresses to you can't (sub)network your home? > > The wording is perfectly clear: if you have more than one device, the > ISP MUST give you a /64 (under that policy). If you have more than one > subnet, the ISP MUST give you a /48. Yes. I can already see the pricing: One device: 20$ 2+ devices: 40$ Network of devices: 60$ Would this kind of "voluntary" assignment work in practise? I wouldn't bet a penny on it; ISP's would just do /128 and write the customer contracts so that the other methods would not be possible in practise. Also, I do not see how a wireless device needs /64 when dial-up wouldn't. I think it's common today that e.g. 2 home computers share an internet connection. With mobiles and other gadgets going IP this might increase. If /128 assignment is the default, this by default would limit the options people are given. Someone frustrated with different pricing would write a hack to do NATv6. I don't think this should be encouraged. The rules should be set so that the default assignment is at least /64. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords From John.Wells at inria.fr Wed May 16 15:23:10 2001 From: John.Wells at inria.fr (John Wells) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:23:10 +0200 Subject: [pekkas@netcore.fi: RIR ISP to end-user address allocation policy?] In-Reply-To: ; from pekkas@netcore.fi on Wed, May 16, 2001 at 04:11:01PM +0300 References: <20010516145430.U36202@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20010516152310.E659@mansoun.planete6.fr> I agree, giving customers a /128 almost guarantees that customers won't be able to run a private network. NATs are difficult to set up on IPv4 (don't ask your mom to do it), but on top of that they're not particularly well liked on IPv6. This may be somewhat of a newbie question, but would all v6 networks want to have DNS delegation, including PANs? I could see an ISP giving everyone a /64, but only delegating DNS authority to those /64s who register themselves as networks. I guess it depends on how DNS will pan out in IPv6. Regards, John mercredi, le 16 mai 2001 ? 16h11 +0300, Pekka Savola a ?crit : > On Wed, 16 May 2001, Gert Doering wrote: > [snip] > > > --- > > > * IAB/IESG recommended /48. > > > * Use a /128 where it is absolutely known that one and only one device is > > > required, e.g. dialup [<--!!!!!!!] > > > * Use a /64 when sure net will not be subnetted, e.g. a mobile phone given > > > 802.11, bluetooth, etc. > > > --- > > > > > > I find this thinking, or at least the examples very flawed. > > > > > > Anyone want to start implementing NATv6 for people whose ISP refuses to > > > give enough addresses to you can't (sub)network your home? > > > > The wording is perfectly clear: if you have more than one device, the > > ISP MUST give you a /64 (under that policy). If you have more than one > > subnet, the ISP MUST give you a /48. > > Yes. I can already see the pricing: > > One device: 20$ > 2+ devices: 40$ > Network of devices: 60$ > > Would this kind of "voluntary" assignment work in practise? I wouldn't > bet a penny on it; ISP's would just do /128 and write the customer > contracts so that the other methods would not be possible in practise. > > Also, I do not see how a wireless device needs /64 when dial-up wouldn't. > > I think it's common today that e.g. 2 home computers share an internet > connection. With mobiles and other gadgets going IP this might increase. > If /128 assignment is the default, this by default would limit the options > people are given. Someone frustrated with different pricing would write a > hack to do NATv6. I don't think this should be encouraged. The rules > should be set so that the default assignment is at least /64. > > -- > Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, > Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" > Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords > > > -- John WELLS INRIA Rh?ne-Alpes ?quipe Plan?te - ENSIMAG 3A/T?l?comm et R?seaux Virginia Tech Networking and Visualization Lab Cl? public: finger wells at mansoun.inrialpes.fr -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 244 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gert at space.net Wed May 16 15:23:39 2001 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:23:39 +0200 Subject: [pekkas@netcore.fi: RIR ISP to end-user address allocation policy?] In-Reply-To: ; from pekkas@netcore.fi on Wed, May 16, 2001 at 04:11:01PM +0300 References: <20010516145430.U36202@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20010516152339.B36202@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 04:11:01PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: > Would this kind of "voluntary" assignment work in practise? I wouldn't > bet a penny on it; ISP's would just do /128 and write the customer > contracts so that the other methods would not be possible in practise. There is nothing voluntary about this., > Also, I do not see how a wireless device needs /64 when dial-up wouldn't. It would, if there's a subnet behind it (bluetooth, whatnot). It wouldn't, otherwise. > I think it's common today that e.g. 2 home computers share an internet > connection. With mobiles and other gadgets going IP this might increase. So they get a /64. No discussion necessary. But for a single-user dynamic IP dialup account ("notebook on the road"), this might just be too much overhead. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From shane at ripe.net Wed May 16 15:38:51 2001 From: shane at ripe.net (Shane Kerr) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:38:51 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [pekkas@netcore.fi: RIR ISP to end-user address allocation policy?] In-Reply-To: <20010516145430.U36202@Space.Net> Message-ID: Not sure about the large number of lists here... anyway... On Wed, 16 May 2001, Gert Doering wrote: > > * IAB/IESG recommended /48. > > * Use a /128 where it is absolutely known that one and only one device is > > required, e.g. dialup [<--!!!!!!!] > > * Use a /64 when sure net will not be subnetted, e.g. a mobile phone given > > 802.11, bluetooth, etc. > > --- > > > > I find this thinking, or at least the examples very flawed. > > > > Anyone want to start implementing NATv6 for people whose ISP refuses to > > give enough addresses to you can't (sub)network your home? > > The wording is perfectly clear: if you have more than one device, the > ISP MUST give you a /64 (under that policy). If you have more than one > subnet, the ISP MUST give you a /48. I suggest that in this world many ISP's will charge more for the /64 than the /128, and yet more for the /48 than the /64. This means those looking to save money (e.g. students, non-profit organizations, or just cheap people like myself) will probably get the /128, and the next thing you know there's NATng. UltraCheapFastISP User Agreement: "The USER agrees that only a single device will be connected and send data via the PROVIDER's facilities." Personally I think this is fine, but then again I love NAT. :) Is it just me, or does the whole discussion seem academic? Because when many ISP's see the gazillions of addresses they get they're going to allocate it in whatever way they want, and won't bother the RIR's for more space for decades. The only other alternative I see is proactive policing by the RIR's, and I think very few people want that. (I surely don't.) -- Shane "speaking only for myself" Kerr From davidg at uk.uu.net Wed May 16 16:10:53 2001 From: davidg at uk.uu.net (David Gethings) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:10:53 +0100 (BST) Subject: [pekkas@netcore.fi: RIR ISP to end-user address allocation policy?] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 16 May 2001, Shane Kerr wrote: > I suggest that in this world many ISP's will charge more for the /64 > than the /128, and yet more for the /48 than the /64. This means those > looking to save money (e.g. students, non-profit organizations, or just > cheap people like myself) will probably get the /128, and the next thing > you know there's NATng. > To do the above would be plain stupidity, and short sightedness on a grand scale (so it will probably happen!). Here's why: With IPv6 the idea of 1 connected device at home is dead, and so it should be. NAT breaks the internet and it is only fancy programing that fixes it again. This is why IPv6 was designed with e2e in mind. IPv6 isn't just about the internet as we know it today. A lot of companies are looking to use IP networks to provide voice, video, and many other servcies that traditionally are serviced on their own network. This means the home will have just one connection point for all its services. Which in turn means that the home user needs atleast a /64, some may even need a /56. The ISP shouldn't need to charge the home user for the address space for two reasons: 1) There's just so much of it that it is practically worthless. 2) The ISP should be making enough money off the content providers I accept that both these reason won't stop some ISPs from charging, but hopefully it should stop the majority. Either way *all* networks need atleast a /64. Dave "Hoping for a brighter future" Gethings From hph at online.no Wed May 16 18:07:57 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 18:07:57 +0200 Subject: [pekkas@netcore.fi: RIR ISP to end-user address allocation policy?] References: Message-ID: <024c01c0de22$5f6cbcf0$0300000a@hph> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shane Kerr" | UltraCheapFastISP User Agreement: | | "The USER agrees that only a single device will be connected and send | data via the PROVIDER's facilities." | | Personally I think this is fine, but then again I love NAT. :) | | Is it just me, or does the whole discussion seem academic? Because when | many ISP's see the gazillions of addresses they get they're going to | allocate it in whatever way they want, and won't bother the RIR's for | more space for decades. The only other alternative I see is proactive | policing by the RIR's, and I think very few people want that. (I surely | don't.) | | -- | Shane "speaking only for myself" Kerr I sincerely hope so, as this seems to be far from what I understand the current RIPE policies to be. Hans Petter Holen speaking as chair of lir-wg. From hph at online.no Wed May 16 18:16:35 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 18:16:35 +0200 Subject: [pekkas@netcore.fi: RIR ISP to end-user address allocation policy?] References: <20010516145430.U36202@Space.Net> <20010516152310.E659@mansoun.planete6.fr> Message-ID: <027201c0de23$94b78290$0300000a@hph> > I could see an ISP >giving everyone a /64, but only delegating DNS authority to those /64s who >register themselves as networks. I don't understand why an ISP would be interested in providing a broken service offering to its customers. >I guess it depends on how DNS will pan out in IPv6. Unless it is administratively easy to provide customer configurable DNS by some automatism, such services are likely not to be offered to mass markets. Personally I would look at this as an engineering challenge: make something that works with ease, rather than limiting the service offering. -hph From hph at online.no Wed May 16 23:30:47 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 23:30:47 +0200 Subject: Fw: [aso-announce] ASO input forum at Saturday June 2nd 0900 Message-ID: <004d01c0de4f$78e8a8b0$0600000a@hph> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans Petter Holen" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 10:47 PM Subject: [aso-announce] ASO input forum at Saturday June 2nd 0900 | Dear Adrressing Community, | | The ASO plans to hold an ASO input forum | at the upcoming ICANN meeting in Stockholm. | | http://www.icann.org/stockholm/ | | The meeting is Scheduled to take place at | Saturday June 2nd 0900 | | Please submit proposals for presentations to be | given to hph at online.no before May 26th | | Best Regards, | | Hans Petter Holen | Address Council Chair | www.aso.icann.org | | * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-announce * | * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-announce-request at aso.icann.org * | | From randy at psg.com Thu May 17 02:19:09 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 20:19:09 -0400 Subject: IPv6 addresses for EP or why are exhanges so special ? References: <002101c0da36$6eab8ec0$0400000a@hph> <20010511190445J.he@runit.no> Message-ID: >> * why are exchange points so special? > My take on this is that "they are not". i suggest that they are. they want just a subnet or site of address space but have no upstream provider(s) from which to get it. hence they want to go to the rir. > For the exchange point medium itself, if the medium is a "multiple- > access broadcast network" it *is* actually a benefit to use the > "natural" way to number such networks, i.e. use a single IP subnet, > as in that case you can use BGP in the "standard configuration". bgp is not needed at all, as the exchange point has no asn, and the prefix is internal to the attached providers. > If your exchange point is implemented using a "multiple-access > non-broadcast network" of some sort, the multiple point-to- point > links, each with their own subnet out of a connected peer's address > block makes sense. yup. you should be able number it as multiple private peerings. but it might be a bit of an adminsitrative pain to an exchange with an mpla as opposed to bi-lats. uncommon case. > Some have said that the IP network used to number the exchange > itself does not have to be announced on the global level. However, > it would appear that practices vary quite widely on this point for > IPv4, and many are announced globally. but they need not be and a bunch of folk asked/agreed not to. and it goes against the 1930 in that the same prefix is originating from more than one asn. this is not deadly, but not pretty, and ill-advised, when there is no need. > You mention the possible use of link-local addresses as you hint, not nice to traceroute through the exchange. > As for the "service network", it will of course need global > connectivity, and thus has to get transit service from one or more > ISPs. What I don't understand is why this service network needs to > be so special up and above other normal customers when it comes to IP > address assignment? i agree that it does not. randy From marc at belnet.be Wed May 16 12:32:39 2001 From: marc at belnet.be (Marc Roger) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:32:39 +0200 (MEST) Subject: RIPE ML issue In-Reply-To: <20010511190445J.he@runit.no> Message-ID: Dear NCC, I have just received the following messages addressed to the lir-wg mailing-list, that were apparently sent more than four days ago: Andre Opperman Fri, 11 May 2001 20:52:19 +0200 <3AFC34E3.5A816A2C at telehouse.ch> Havard Eidnes Fri, 11 May 2001 19:04:45 +0200 <20010511190445J.he at runit.no> In both messages I see that it was processed by qmail at the RIPE mail server today at 09:44 and that they do not appear in the lir-wg archives at their original posting date, which indicates that the problem is not local: see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/current/mail3.html This is not the first occurence of this phenomenon, eg on May 9th at 11:31 I have received the following announcement: Return-Path: Received: from vivaldi.belnet.be (vivaldi.belnet.be [193.190.198.2]) by dagesh.fw.belnet.be (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f499VvM23656 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 11:31:57 +0200 (MEST) Received: from postman.ripe.net (postman.ripe.net [193.0.0.199]) by vivaldi.belnet.be (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f499Vuw11762 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 11:31:56 +0200 (MEST) Received: (qmail 1707 invoked by alias); 9 May 2001 09:23:44 -0000 Delivered-To: lists-local-ir-reg at lists.ripe.net Received: (qmail 1558 invoked by alias); 9 May 2001 09:23:36 -0000 Delivered-To: lists-local-ir-out at lists.ripe.net Received: (qmail 1475 invoked by uid 66); 9 May 2001 09:23:31 -0000 Message-Id: <200105041452.QAA11314 at office.ripe.net> To: ripe-list at ripe.net Cc: local-ir at ripe.net, lir-wg at ripe.net From: RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service Subject: New Document available: RIPE-220 X-Phone: +31 20 535 4444 X-Fax: +31 20 535 4445 Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 16:52:47 +0200 Sender: owner-local-ir at ripe.net Precedence: bulk (which is also archived under "09 May 2001" on the ML archives) It is not possible to follow a discussion if messages are randomly delayed by several days like this. Can I kindly ask the RIPE NCC to fix this problem ? -- Marc.Roger at belnet.be, BELNET, the National Research Network From pm at zetnet.net Thu May 17 13:59:23 2001 From: pm at zetnet.net (Paul Martin) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 12:59:23 +0100 Subject: IPv6 addresses for EP or why are exhanges so special ? In-Reply-To: ; from randy@psg.com on Wed, May 16, 2001 at 08:19:09PM -0400 References: <002101c0da36$6eab8ec0$0400000a@hph> <20010511190445J.he@runit.no> Message-ID: <20010517125923.E27988@irwell.zetnet.co.uk> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 08:19:09PM -0400, Randy Bush wrote: > bgp is not needed at all, as the exchange point has no asn, and the > prefix is internal to the attached providers. Several European IXPs run their own BGP, and have their own ASN, with one or more of their members providing transit to the IXP's PA space. -- Paul Martin From becha at ripe.net Thu May 17 15:34:27 2001 From: becha at ripe.net (Vesna Manojlovic) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:34:27 +0200 Subject: RIPE ML issue In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 16 May 2001 12:32:39 +0200. References: Message-ID: <200105171334.PAA13718@kantoor.ripe.net> Dear Marc, thank you for pointing out to this problem, and please receive apologies for the delays that happened recently. Here is what is causing them: RIPE Working Groups mailing lists are moderated lists, so that only subscribers can post to them (to prevent "spam"). Still, lists are open for subscription to everyone. Bounced messages go to the human moderator, and are being looked into and manually approved, at least twice a day, during working days. If the message is sent after working hours, or on the weekend, its approval will be delayed, and that will indeed confuse the archiving. To improve the situation, it would be helpful if mailing list members would post from the same address that they are subscribed from. However, due to the parallel discussions that happen on several mailing lists, or relevant postings done only once from non-subscribers, or messages that get bounced because they have a word "subscribe" in the body, it is inevitable that this kind of behaviour of the mailing list archiving will sometimes occur. We are looking at this problem at RIPE NCC, and will improve our archiving software. We apologise again for any inconvenience. Vesna Manojlovic RIPE NCC staff Marc Roger writes: * Dear NCC, * * I have just received the following messages addressed to the lir-wg * mailing-list, that were apparently sent more than four days ago: * * Andre Opperman Fri, 11 May 2001 20:52:19 +0200 <3AFC34E3.5A816 * A2C at telehouse.ch> * Havard Eidnes Fri, 11 May 2001 19:04:45 +0200 <20010511190445 * J.he at runit.no> * * In both messages I see that it was processed by qmail at the RIPE mail * server today at 09:44 and that they do not appear in the lir-wg archives * at their original posting date, which indicates that the problem is not * local: see * http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/current/mail3.html * * This is not the first occurence of this phenomenon, eg on May 9th at 11:31 * I have received the following announcement: * * Return-Path: * Received: from vivaldi.belnet.be (vivaldi.belnet.be [193.190.198.2]) * by dagesh.fw.belnet.be (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f499VvM23656 * for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 11:31:57 +0200 (MEST) * Received: from postman.ripe.net (postman.ripe.net [193.0.0.199]) * by vivaldi.belnet.be (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f499Vuw11762 * for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 11:31:56 +0200 (MEST) * Received: (qmail 1707 invoked by alias); 9 May 2001 09:23:44 -0000 * Delivered-To: lists-local-ir-reg at lists.ripe.net * Received: (qmail 1558 invoked by alias); 9 May 2001 09:23:36 -0000 * Delivered-To: lists-local-ir-out at lists.ripe.net * Received: (qmail 1475 invoked by uid 66); 9 May 2001 09:23:31 -0000 * Message-Id: <200105041452.QAA11314 at office.ripe.net> * To: ripe-list at ripe.net * Cc: local-ir at ripe.net, lir-wg at ripe.net * From: RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service * Subject: New Document available: RIPE-220 * X-Phone: +31 20 535 4444 * X-Fax: +31 20 535 4445 * Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 16:52:47 +0200 * Sender: owner-local-ir at ripe.net * Precedence: bulk * * (which is also archived under "09 May 2001" on the ML archives) * * It is not possible to follow a discussion if messages are randomly delayed * by several days like this. Can I kindly ask the RIPE NCC to fix this * problem ? * * -- * Marc.Roger at belnet.be, BELNET, the National Research Network * * * * * * From randy at psg.com Thu May 17 16:49:47 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 07:49:47 -0700 Subject: IPv6 addresses for EP or why are exhanges so special ? References: <002101c0da36$6eab8ec0$0400000a@hph> <20010511190445J.he@runit.no> <20010517125923.E27988@irwell.zetnet.co.uk> Message-ID: >> bgp is not needed at all, as the exchange point has no asn, and the >> prefix is internal to the attached providers. > Several European IXPs run their own BGP, and have their own ASN, with > one or more of their members providing transit to the IXP's PA space. this is true for most exchanges. but the exchange mesh itself, which is the subject of our discussion, is not in that asn. it is the side service net which is in the transit asn. randy From pm at zetnet.net Thu May 17 18:29:03 2001 From: pm at zetnet.net (Paul Martin) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:29:03 +0100 Subject: IPv6 addresses for EP or why are exhanges so special ? In-Reply-To: ; from randy@psg.com on Thu, May 17, 2001 at 07:49:47AM -0700 References: <002101c0da36$6eab8ec0$0400000a@hph> <20010511190445J.he@runit.no> <20010517125923.E27988@irwell.zetnet.co.uk> Message-ID: <20010517172903.A17691@irwell.zetnet.co.uk> On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 07:49:47AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > >> bgp is not needed at all, as the exchange point has no asn, and the > >> prefix is internal to the attached providers. > > Several European IXPs run their own BGP, and have their own ASN, with > > one or more of their members providing transit to the IXP's PA space. > > this is true for most exchanges. but the exchange mesh itself, which is > the subject of our discussion, is not in that asn. it is the side service > net which is in the transit asn. I know of at least one IXP which uses a portion of its PA space for the exchange itself (on a multiple-access broadcast network, ie. switched ethernet) -- it was advised to do so by RIPE. Strangely enough, it is some of the side services that are on non-global-transit address space. -- Paul Martin From ALow at Prioritytelecom.com Fri May 18 10:55:17 2001 From: ALow at Prioritytelecom.com (Low, Adam) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:55:17 +0200 Subject: New Document available: RIPE-219 Message-ID: Is it me or are the ASCII versions of this document unavailable, the FTP site doesnt seem to have them ? Thanks, Adam > -----Original Message----- > From: RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service [mailto:ncc at ripe.net] > Sent: 04 May 2001 16:58 > To: ripe-list at ripe.net > Cc: local-ir at ripe.net; lir-wg at ripe.net > Subject: New Document available: RIPE-219 > > > New RIPE Document Announcement > -------------------------------------- > A new document is available from the RIPE Document Store. > > > Short content description > ------------------------- > RIPE Document number 219 is the European IP Address Space > Request Form. This new document obseletes RIPE-141. > > > Accessing the RIPE Document Store > --------------------------------- > > The RIPE document store is available via anonymous FTP to > ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. > The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: > > ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-219.ps PostScript version > ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-219.txt plain text version > > You can also access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW. > RIPE-219 is not available from the WWW at this moment, but will > be soon, at the following URL: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-219.html > From ncc at ripe.net Fri May 18 14:18:44 2001 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Staff) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:18:44 +0200 Subject: 80/8, 81/8 Allocated to the RIPE NCC Message-ID: <200105181218.OAA26500@office.ripe.net> Dear all, This is to inform you that the RIPE NCC has recently been allocated the CIDR blocks 80/8 and 81/8 by IANA. The RIPE NCC is currently starting to make allocations primarily from 80/8. The minimum allocation size made by the RIPE NCC in these address blocks is a /20. ** If you use prefix based filtering in your routers, please note this change ** This has been announced previously but may not have reached all affected parties. We sincerely apologise for this. For a complete list of all /8 address blocks, please refer to: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno From ncc at ripe.net Fri May 18 14:27:12 2001 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Staff) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:27:12 +0200 Subject: 80/8, 81/8 Allocated to the RIPE NCC Message-ID: <200105181227.OAA27599@office.ripe.net> Dear all, This is to inform you that the RIPE NCC has recently been allocated the CIDR blocks 80/8 and 81/8 by IANA. The RIPE NCC is currently starting to make allocations primarily from 80/8. The minimum allocation size made by the RIPE NCC in these address blocks is a /20. ** If you use prefix based filtering in your routers, please note this change ** This has been announced previously but may not have reached all affected parties. We sincerely apologise for this. For a complete list of all /8 address blocks, please refer to: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno +------------------------------------+ | Nurani Nimpuno | | Registration Services Manager | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | | http://www.ripe.net | +------------------------------------+ From randy at psg.com Fri May 18 16:10:04 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 07:10:04 -0700 Subject: IPv6 addresses for EP or why are exhanges so special ? References: <002101c0da36$6eab8ec0$0400000a@hph> <20010511190445J.he@runit.no> <20010517125923.E27988@irwell.zetnet.co.uk> <20010517172903.A17691@irwell.zetnet.co.uk> Message-ID: >>>> bgp is not needed at all, as the exchange point has no asn, and the >>>> prefix is internal to the attached providers. >>> Several European IXPs run their own BGP, and have their own ASN, with >>> one or more of their members providing transit to the IXP's PA space. >> this is true for most exchanges. but the exchange mesh itself, which is >> the subject of our discussion, is not in that asn. it is the side service >> net which is in the transit asn. > I know of at least one IXP which uses a portion of its PA space for the > exchange itself (on a multiple-access broadcast network, ie. switched > ethernet) -- it was advised to do so by RIPE. Strangely enough, it is > some of the side services that are on non-global-transit address space. i lived in california for three years and learned that, if people want to be kinky, then you are not going to change them, so politely ignore them. the point here is that folk who want to do things in the expected/normal ways should be able to do so. randy From ncc at ripe.net Mon May 21 16:38:23 2001 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Staff) Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:38:23 +0200 Subject: Re-shifting priorities in the Registration Services Message-ID: <200105211438.QAA26650@office.ripe.net> Dear all, This is to inform you that we are re-shifting our priorities in the Registration Services at the RIPE NCC. As this may affect the members' planning, the details are outlined below. The Registration Services will for the coming future be focusing its efforts on IP and ASN requests. As reported over the last years, a large part of the RS's workload is represented by the high amounts of questions we receive. However, it has been expressed in the membership that although the education is a vital part of the RIPE NCC's role, it shouldn't impede or delay the evaluation of IP and ASN requests. In order to give required priority to IP and ASN requests, we will therefore be giving lower priority to general questions and queries, which will be removed from the general wait queue. While we are waiting for software to automate this process, we are already starting this approach on a manual basis. We therefore ask for your patience with your questions and queries, keeping in mind that IP and ASN requests will be answered in a quicker fashion. We would also like to ask you to make sure that your requests are properly filled out, paying close attention to all templates as this ensures that correct priority is given and faster processing of the request. Please see the URLs below for further information and explanations. Another change underway is related to the way priorities are given to new and on-going requests. In order to reduce the initial waiting time, we will be giving priority to new requests as opposed to on-goings. This will allow hostmasters to quickly reply to and approve correct requests, while requests that require many corrections and reiterations are given a lower priority. This change is in concordance with recent feedback from the community and is part of an attempt to respond to the membership needs in a more precise and timely fashion. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno +------------------------------------+ | Nurani Nimpuno | | Registration Services Manager | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | | http://www.ripe.net | +------------------------------------+ Quick tips for IP and AS Requests: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/tips/tips.html Registration Services FAQ: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/faq/registration/index.html European IP Address Space Request Form http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/iprequestform.html Supporting Notes for the European IP Address Space Request Form http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/iprequestsupport.html From ncc at ripe.net Mon May 21 16:38:23 2001 From: ncc at ripe.net (ncc at ripe.net) Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:38:23 +0200 Subject: Re-shifting priorities in the Registration Services In-Reply-To: <200105211438.QAA26650@office.ripe.net> References: <200105211438.QAA26650@office.ripe.net> Message-ID: Dear all, This is to inform you that we are re-shifting our priorities in the Registration Services at the RIPE NCC. As this may affect the members' planning, the details are outlined below. The Registration Services will for the coming future be focusing its efforts on IP and ASN requests. As reported over the last years, a large part of the RS's workload is represented by the high amounts of questions we receive. However, it has been expressed in the membership that although the education is a vital part of the RIPE NCC's role, it shouldn't impede or delay the evaluation of IP and ASN requests. In order to give required priority to IP and ASN requests, we will therefore be giving lower priority to general questions and queries, which will be removed from the general wait queue. While we are waiting for software to automate this process, we are already starting this approach on a manual basis. We therefore ask for your patience with your questions and queries, keeping in mind that IP and ASN requests will be answered in a quicker fashion. We would also like to ask you to make sure that your requests are properly filled out, paying close attention to all templates as this ensures that correct priority is given and faster processing of the request. Please see the URLs below for further information and explanations. Another change underway is related to the way priorities are given to new and on-going requests. In order to reduce the initial waiting time, we will be giving priority to new requests as opposed to on-goings. This will allow hostmasters to quickly reply to and approve correct requests, while requests that require many corrections and reiterations are given a lower priority. This change is in concordance with recent feedback from the community and is part of an attempt to respond to the membership needs in a more precise and timely fashion. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno +------------------------------------+ | Nurani Nimpuno | | Registration Services Manager | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | | http://www.ripe.net | +------------------------------------+ Quick tips for IP and AS Requests: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/tips/tips.html Registration Services FAQ: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/faq/registration/index.html European IP Address Space Request Form http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/iprequestform.html Supporting Notes for the European IP Address Space Request Form http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/iprequestsupport.html From ncc at ripe.net Mon May 21 18:49:24 2001 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Staff) Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 18:49:24 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation Message-ID: <200105211649.SAA10823@office.ripe.net> Dear all, At the last RIPE meeting (RIPE 39) in Bologna, the issue of criteria for PA Allocations was discussed in the LIR-WG. The presentation delivered is available from: http://www.ripe.net/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/ (Please also refer to the mail sent out to the lir-working group the 25 April at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/current/msg00056.html We would like the communities input on this matter. The problem brought up was the lack of clear and consistent policy on portable address space. Currently two types of portable address space are available: - Provider Aggregatable (PA) Allocations - Provider Independent (PI) Assignments The discussion was focused on criteria for PA Allocations as this is where the most significant policy inconsistency can be found. Current criteria for initial PA Allocations are: - Membership (You are required to be a member in order to get your first allocation. The RIPE NCC membership is open, anyone can become a member.) - Justification of first assignment (You are required to justify the first assignment you make out of your allocation. There is no minimum assignment size.) The minimal PA Allocation size is currently a /20 (= 4096 IP addresses) This means in reality that anyone who can justify one IP address is eligible for 4096 addresses. With an increased demand for independence and multi-homing, the RIPE NCC can see the consequences of this in the impressive membership growth in the last years: New LIRs set up per year: 1997: 262 1998: 446 1999: 525 2000: 865 2001: 997 (projected, end of year) The RIPE NCC has experienced several cases where organisations have insisted on becoming members in order to receive a portable /20 address block despite the fact they clearly state that their need is for less, in some cases only for c:a 300 addresses. We also observe organisations who become LIRs with the pure objective of obtaining portable address space but who are unaware of the responsibilities and workload membership comprises. As all assignments made are based on need, there is clearly a policy inconsistency in the fact that allocations currently do not require any such justification. Consensus was reached in the LIR-WG at RIPE 39 that a set of criteria should be defined for obtaining an initial PA Allocation. The working group also agreed that the exact details of those criteria should be further discussed on the mailing list. Extending the logic of basing address assignments on need and previous utilisation to allocations, I therefore put forward the following proposal: Proposed Initial PA Allocation Criteria: - Demonstrated efficient utilisation of a /xx (/22?) Or - Immediate need for a /xx (/22?) - Agree to renumber (Required? Recommended?) As the need for portable address space is a complex matter, I would like to propose to first focus this discussion on defining these criteria. The matter clearly also touches on the matter of PI Assignments, which is something I would like to encourage further discussion on. However, I would like start by requesting the communities input on the matter of initial PA Allocation criteria. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno +------------------------------------+ | Nurani Nimpuno | | Registration Services Manager | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | | http://www.ripe.net | +------------------------------------+ Relevant studies: ----------------- Philip Smith "Studies of the routing table": http://www.apnic.net/stats/bgp/ Geoff Huston "Measuring BGP": http://www.apnic.net/meetings/presentations/apricot01.ppt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-bgparch-00.txt Scott Marcus "ASN Growth": http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-38/index.html RIS report / BGP prefix distribution: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/np/ris-index.html From alfredo at intelideas.com Mon May 21 19:35:49 2001 From: alfredo at intelideas.com (Alfredo Sola) Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 19:35:49 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation References: <200105211649.SAA10823@office.ripe.net> Message-ID: <3B0951F5.DF53CE8D@intelideas.com> > The RIPE NCC has experienced several cases where organisations have > insisted on becoming members in order to receive a portable /20 > address block despite the fact they clearly state that their need is > for less, in some cases only for c:a 300 addresses. We also observe > organisations who become LIRs with the pure objective of obtaining > portable address space but who are unaware of the responsibilities and > workload membership comprises. We are painfully aware of this. Furthermore, many mid to large organisations could do it with less than a /24 as they are doing address translation and need only a handful of IPs for the translated users and a handful of public servers. However, I don't think it is feasible to allocate such small ranges. The only alternative to me seems to lower the initial allocation of Enterprise LIRs to a /22 or even a /24 (if a range is available that won't be filtered out by the usual prefix length policies), except if the LIR asks for something larger on the first request. By doing that, you would also be able to say to PI requesters to get a LIR, which they don't actually need to get their IPs as of now. Responsibilities - I honestly don't have a suggestion for that, other than pointing out that when one needs only one range and maybe a second one after many months or even years, this can probably be done without much hassle. It would be more of a problem if we were talking about ISPs, which need new allocations every day. -- Alfredo Sola Director t?cnico () ascii ribbon campaign /\ Support plain text e-mail From jorma.mellin at teliafi.net Tue May 22 10:27:28 2001 From: jorma.mellin at teliafi.net (Jorma Mellin) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 11:27:28 +0300 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: <200105211649.SAA10823@office.ripe.net> Message-ID: <2688370910.990530848@jome.telia.fi> > At the last RIPE meeting (RIPE 39) in Bologna, the issue of criteria > for PA Allocations was discussed in the LIR-WG. The presentation > delivered is available from: > http://www.ripe.net/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/ A couple of comments to the slide "reasons for portable address size (#7): - we want our own routable block yes, sure. What is the entity who can guarantee this. The RIR's? For reasons such us technical limitations and the overall wellbeeing of the existing community doing full routing, there has to be some limitations, best practises and guidelines. If an applicant is granted an address space using this argument as a reason, who wants to carry (s)he's routes anyway? So you want your own block, but I do not want to route it, we have a problem or not? - we want to use BGP and be multi-homed Good. There exists several methods you could run a working network also with this approach, even when you get address space from your upstream providers. Alternatives include NAT, private-ASN and address space from upstream, unique-ASN and private addr. space, unique-ASN and address space from upstream. You can also make use of the "do-not-export" and "do-not-advertise" attributes to make things work. One problem still remains with this; if you want to peer with multiple providers at some public IX. Then it is unlikely that you can play around with these options. I do suppose that majority of IX peers are LIR's anyhow and this maybe isn't a real problem afterall. - we need to be independed In Internet community at large we are all depended from each other. If you do not like your current providers, make a change or became one of yourself. I really do not think that beeing independed at Internet has anything to do with numbers (numbers are just a technical way of doing things, like E.164 telephony numbers). - our upstream adviced use to become a LIR Well, if you are acting like a LIR (= assigning address space further to your partners/customers etc), then maybe you should. There is some extra work in sight that has to be taken into account when making this decision. But if you don't feel like a LIR, or do not want to run LIR procedures, then you should not be forced to be one. > With an increased demand for independence and multi-homing, the RIPE > NCC can see the consequences of this in the impressive membership > growth in the last years: --clip-- > The RIPE NCC has experienced several cases where organisations have > insisted on becoming members in order to receive a portable /20 > address block despite the fact they clearly state that their need is > for less, in some cases only for c:a 300 addresses. We also observe > organisations who become LIRs with the pure objective of obtaining > portable address space but who are unaware of the responsibilities and > workload membership comprises. Are all members counted as LIR's? My opinion is that members assigning address space further down to other organisations should be counted as LIR's. Others are just members. LIR's then get initial allocations, others do not. If a member claims to be a LIR, but haven't made further assignments within a reasonable time, the member status could be revised. Problem is then what happens to the address space the member holds? Maybe a renumbering is needed (something that all PA address space holders have agreed anyhow, if necessary). > As all assignments made are based on need, there is clearly a policy > inconsistency in the fact that allocations currently do not require > any such justification. If allocations are only granted to LIR's then I see no problem with this. If allocations are granted to everybody we clearly have a non-scalable situation here. > Extending the logic of basing address assignments on need and previous > utilisation to allocations, I therefore put forward the following > proposal: > > Proposed Initial PA Allocation Criteria: > > - Demonstrated efficient utilisation of a /xx (/22?) > Or > - Immediate need for a /xx (/22?) > > - Agree to renumber (Required? Recommended?) > Hhmm. What if we just open up the restrictions having assignments from more than one upstream (LIR). If multihomed (with unique-ASN or private-ASN), the user could hold similar assignments from each upstream provider. This means that the organisation is required to fullfill address requirements only once. The scaling of this is also questionable, but it makes possible to have larger aggregations. This seems to be the point here anyhow, to reduce the growth of the routing table. > The matter clearly also touches on the matter of PI Assignments, which > is something I would like to encourage further discussion on. However, > I would like start by requesting the communities input on the matter > of initial PA Allocation criteria. PI assignments should be limited exactly to the amount what is needed. If the amount needed is not large enough to be routable the applicant should re-think it's strategy. In my opinion RIR's have no responsibilities towards the community what is the minimum routable aggregation size. Jorma ---------------------------------- jorma.mellin at teliafi.net Development Manager ; CCIE#4185 Telia Finland Inc, Carrier&Networks From hank at att.net.il Tue May 22 09:54:25 2001 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 09:54:25 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: <200105211649.SAA10823@office.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010522094928.00aead20@max.ibm.net.il> At 18:49 21/05/01 +0200, RIPE NCC Staff wrote: >Dear all, > >At the last RIPE meeting (RIPE 39) in Bologna, the issue of criteria >for PA Allocations was discussed in the LIR-WG. The presentation >delivered is available from: >http://www.ripe.net/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/ > >(Please also refer to the mail sent out to the lir-working group the >25 April at: >http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/current/msg00056.html > >We would like the communities input on this matter. > >The problem brought up was the lack of clear and consistent policy on >portable address space. Currently two types of portable address space >are available: >- Provider Aggregatable (PA) Allocations >- Provider Independent (PI) Assignments > >The discussion was focused on criteria for PA Allocations as this is >where the most significant policy inconsistency can be found. Current >criteria for initial PA Allocations are: >- Membership (You are required to be a member in order to get your >first allocation. The RIPE NCC membership is open, anyone can become a >member.) >- Justification of first assignment (You are required to justify the >first assignment you make out of your allocation. There is no minimum >assignment size.) > >The minimal PA Allocation size is currently a /20 (= 4096 IP >addresses) This means in reality that anyone who can justify one IP >address is eligible for 4096 addresses. > >With an increased demand for independence and multi-homing, the RIPE >NCC can see the consequences of this in the impressive membership >growth in the last years: > >New LIRs set up per year: >1997: 262 >1998: 446 >1999: 525 >2000: 865 >2001: 997 (projected, end of year) > >The RIPE NCC has experienced several cases where organisations have >insisted on becoming members in order to receive a portable /20 >address block despite the fact they clearly state that their need is >for less, in some cases only for c:a 300 addresses. We also observe >organisations who become LIRs with the pure objective of obtaining >portable address space but who are unaware of the responsibilities and >workload membership comprises. > >As all assignments made are based on need, there is clearly a policy >inconsistency in the fact that allocations currently do not require >any such justification. > >Consensus was reached in the LIR-WG at RIPE 39 that a set of criteria >should be defined for obtaining an initial PA Allocation. The working >group also agreed that the exact details of those criteria should be >further discussed on the mailing list. > >Extending the logic of basing address assignments on need and previous >utilisation to allocations, I therefore put forward the following >proposal: > >Proposed Initial PA Allocation Criteria: > >- Demonstrated efficient utilisation of a /xx (/22?) >Or >- Immediate need for a /xx (/22?) > >- Agree to renumber (Required? Recommended?) > >As the need for portable address space is a complex matter, I would >like to propose to first focus this discussion on defining these >criteria. You can view the criteria we have been using for the past 2 years at: http://www.isoc.org.il/ip-nets-rules.html You can see that we actively revoke allocations when an organization stops being multihomed: http://www.isoc.org.il/ipolicy.html Much more important than working out the details of what criteria qualify you for a /22 would be what criteria will cause RIPE to revoke the /22 it has assigned. -Hank >The matter clearly also touches on the matter of PI Assignments, which >is something I would like to encourage further discussion on. However, >I would like start by requesting the communities input on the matter >of initial PA Allocation criteria. > >Kind regards, > >Nurani Nimpuno > >+------------------------------------+ >| Nurani Nimpuno | >| Registration Services Manager | >| RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | >| http://www.ripe.net | >+------------------------------------+ > > >Relevant studies: >----------------- >Philip Smith "Studies of the routing table": >http://www.apnic.net/stats/bgp/ >Geoff Huston "Measuring BGP": >http://www.apnic.net/meetings/presentations/apricot01.ppt >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-bgparch-00.txt >Scott Marcus "ASN Growth": >http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-38/index.html >RIS report / BGP prefix distribution: >http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/np/ris-index.html From jacek_blocki at hp.com Tue May 22 14:20:31 2001 From: jacek_blocki at hp.com (BLOCKI,JACEK (HP-Poland,ex1)) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:20:31 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation Message-ID: <952C79D45561D4119FCE00D0B708C8E001E33916@lem.poland.hp.com> Hello, Existing procedures promote allocation of /20 block to those who need multi homed networks. An example new LIR registration form included in Ripe212 reads: 4. What are the main reasons for becoming an LIR, rather than requesting address space from the upstream provider? We want to use BGP and connect to 2 upstream providers. Everyone knows existing internet has two problems: *limited IPv4 address space which has to be assigned in a fair manner *growing number of BGP routing entries Unfortunately those two are interconnected, if we decide to reduce initial allocation size and promote becoming a LIR, number of ASes will grow. One should keep in mind this number is also limited, on cisco routers AS number is two byte unsigned integer thus we can have max 65536 ASes. Conclusion: BGP "address space" (ASes) is even easier to exhaust than IPv4 address space. Of course one can always request IOS modification, but it will also require change in BGP specification. Taking into account scale of change and resulting growth of routing tables it won't be easy. As I understand existing RIPE rules are oriented towards traffic organization. LIRs provide internet connectivity and assign IP addresses to end customers. In an ideal world, where providers guarantee QoS there will be no need for end user multi homing. However world is not perfect, therefore a need for multi homing arises. In my opinion, based on situation in Poland, the only way to ensure proper routing is own CIDR block -> go LIR. Other solutions such as "more specific routes" don't work in practice, especially when you want to provide service (e.g. run portal) over internet. From technical point of view BGP deployment is a valid reason to assign a CIDR block. If we want to tame rapid growth of LIRs we should ask for justification of BGP implementation and refuse LIR registration if the only reason is convenience (we want own address space and are aware of PI problems). Of course it won't be easy and will result in numerous problems. Therefore we should only impose administrative limitations on becoming a LIR if we have to, e.g. we are afraid to run out of CIDRs before IPv6 is widely implemented. I understand such a policy hinders "new kids on the block", but CIDR blocks are no different from any other scarce resource, difficulty to get one increases as number of free ones decreases. Regards, Jacek Blocki -----Original Message----- From: Alfredo Sola [mailto:alfredo at intelideas.com] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:36 PM To: RIPE NCC Staff Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: Criteria for initial PA Allocation > The RIPE NCC has experienced several cases where organisations have > insisted on becoming members in order to receive a portable /20 > address block despite the fact they clearly state that their need is > for less, in some cases only for c:a 300 addresses. We also observe > organisations who become LIRs with the pure objective of obtaining > portable address space but who are unaware of the responsibilities and > workload membership comprises. We are painfully aware of this. Furthermore, many mid to large organisations could do it with less than a /24 as they are doing address translation and need only a handful of IPs for the translated users and a handful of public servers. However, I don't think it is feasible to allocate such small ranges. The only alternative to me seems to lower the initial allocation of Enterprise LIRs to a /22 or even a /24 (if a range is available that won't be filtered out by the usual prefix length policies), except if the LIR asks for something larger on the first request. By doing that, you would also be able to say to PI requesters to get a LIR, which they don't actually need to get their IPs as of now. Responsibilities - I honestly don't have a suggestion for that, other than pointing out that when one needs only one range and maybe a second one after many months or even years, this can probably be done without much hassle. It would be more of a problem if we were talking about ISPs, which need new allocations every day. -- Alfredo Sola Director t?cnico () ascii ribbon campaign /\ Support plain text e-mail From cfriacas at fccn.pt Tue May 22 15:16:32 2001 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:16:32 +0100 (WEST) Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: <200105211649.SAA10823@office.ripe.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 May 2001, RIPE NCC Staff wrote: > Dear all, > > At the last RIPE meeting (RIPE 39) in Bologna, the issue of criteria > for PA Allocations was discussed in the LIR-WG. The presentation > delivered is available from: > http://www.ripe.net/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/ > > (Please also refer to the mail sent out to the lir-working group the > 25 April at: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/current/msg00056.html > > We would like the communities input on this matter. > > The problem brought up was the lack of clear and consistent policy on > portable address space. Currently two types of portable address space > are available: > - Provider Aggregatable (PA) Allocations > - Provider Independent (PI) Assignments > > The discussion was focused on criteria for PA Allocations as this is > where the most significant policy inconsistency can be found. Current > criteria for initial PA Allocations are: > - Membership (You are required to be a member in order to get your > first allocation. The RIPE NCC membership is open, anyone can become a > member.) > - Justification of first assignment (You are required to justify the > first assignment you make out of your allocation. There is no minimum > assignment size.) > > The minimal PA Allocation size is currently a /20 (= 4096 IP > addresses) This means in reality that anyone who can justify one IP > address is eligible for 4096 addresses. Hello. /22 is a much more reasonable value by my view... what percentage of members are ISPs ? :-) Perhaps its possible to typify in some way the organizations that actually do the requests, and start using different minimum PA allocation sizes. For instance... an ISP could get the minimal PA allocation of /20 the same way, but a bank or an insurance company, that normally represents a client for an ISP, could have a different minimal (and shorter!) PA allocation. > With an increased demand for independence and multi-homing, the RIPE > NCC can see the consequences of this in the impressive membership > growth in the last years: > > New LIRs set up per year: > 1997: 262 > 1998: 446 > 1999: 525 > 2000: 865 > 2001: 997 (projected, end of year) > > The RIPE NCC has experienced several cases where organisations have > insisted on becoming members in order to receive a portable /20 > address block despite the fact they clearly state that their need is > for less, in some cases only for c:a 300 addresses. We also observe > organisations who become LIRs with the pure objective of obtaining > portable address space but who are unaware of the responsibilities and > workload membership comprises. Imposing a minimum number of *active* peers (and within a specified time) should help to reduce these cases... > As all assignments made are based on need, Sometimes on a "pseudo-need", i think... :-) > there is clearly a policy inconsistency in the fact that allocations > currently do not require any such justification. Only first allocs, or second/third/... too ? > Consensus was reached in the LIR-WG at RIPE 39 that a set of criteria > should be defined for obtaining an initial PA Allocation. The working > group also agreed that the exact details of those criteria should be > further discussed on the mailing list. > > Extending the logic of basing address assignments on need and previous > utilisation to allocations, I therefore put forward the following > proposal: > > Proposed Initial PA Allocation Criteria: > > - Demonstrated efficient utilisation of a /xx (/22?) > Or > - Immediate need for a /xx (/22?) > > - Agree to renumber (Required? Recommended?) Requirement should only be mandatory with well defined boundaries... - Need to renumber with X "disjoint" allocations - And depending on the size of the allocation... renumbering a /20 i think its not impossible, but i dont see anyone starting to renumber a /16 or a bigger one... > As the need for portable address space is a complex matter, I would > like to propose to first focus this discussion on defining these > criteria. > > The matter clearly also touches on the matter of PI Assignments, which > is something I would like to encourage further discussion on. However, > I would like start by requesting the communities input on the matter > of initial PA Allocation criteria. Normally when an ISP client gets a /20 directly it requests also an ASN, right ? If they would only get some PI space, wouldnt we save some more ASNs ? (...) I have a question about this... isnt there a way of enforcing organizations that only have one peering to give back "their" "misused" ASN to the RIR ? Does anyone know a tool that uses RIPE DBs and that can do these kind of verifications quickly ? :-) > Kind regards, > > Nurani Nimpuno Regards, ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" ------------------- , CMF8-RIPE, Wide Area Network WorkGroup http://www.fccn.pt F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax: +351 218472167 From cfriacas at fccn.pt Tue May 22 15:16:40 2001 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:16:40 +0100 (WEST) Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010522094928.00aead20@max.ibm.net.il> Message-ID: On Tue, 22 May 2001, Hank Nussbacher wrote: (...) > You can view the criteria we have been using for the past 2 years at: > http://www.isoc.org.il/ip-nets-rules.html > > You can see that we actively revoke allocations when an organization stops > being multihomed: > http://www.isoc.org.il/ipolicy.html > > Much more important than working out the details of what criteria qualify > you for a /22 would be what criteria will cause RIPE to revoke the /22 it > has assigned. 100% support on this... "Cleaning-up" rules/processes would be a very good idea, because companies end their activity, or get bought by other companies, and in these cases a re-evaluation of the RIR's allocations could help save some "resources" :-) Portugal is perhaps not a great example by its reduced size, but what we are seeing here is that big ISPs are buying smaller ISPs, and smaller ISPs that cant get bought are on route to simply close doors... :-( > -Hank > Regards, ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" ------------------- , CMF8-RIPE, Wide Area Network WorkGroup http://www.fccn.pt F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax: +351 218472167 From jorma.mellin at teliafi.net Tue May 22 15:43:54 2001 From: jorma.mellin at teliafi.net (Jorma Mellin) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:43:54 +0300 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: <952C79D45561D4119FCE00D0B708C8E001E33916@lem.poland.hp.com> Message-ID: <2707356510.990549834@jome.telia.fi> > One should keep in mind this number is also limited, on cisco routers AS > number is two byte unsigned integer thus we can have max 65536 ASes. > Conclusion: BGP "address space" (ASes) is even easier to exhaust than > IPv4 address space. Of course one can always request IOS modification, > but it will also require change in BGP specification. Taking into account > scale of change and resulting growth of routing tables it won't be easy. yes, I do agree that we run out of ASN's before IPv4 addresses. The problem doesn't get fixed by IOS update, because there do exists also other vendor boxes out there and therefore we need a RFC update (what is coming if I remember correctly). > LIRs provide internet connectivity and assign IP addresses > to end customers. The problem here is that organisations that want portable address space do not necessarily want to be a LIR, nor do they have any end-users, or customers. The system is forcing them to apply a LIR status anyway and if they are not willing to take the risk with PI space they end up having a /20 from PA space at least. Maybe this dilemma can be solved by adjusting the rules a bit. Although much can be done by BGP parameters I do admit that there can be huge problems with it. Another problem with highly advanced BGP configs is the case-by-case planning they require, and general rules or guidelines are difficult to give. What if we modify the rule stating that only one origin-AS for a route-obj can exist in the db? And add that more-spesifics are allowed as valid route-objects as long as they are part of portable address space. This gives us another problem, how do we tell what is portable NLRI and what is not. Maybe we need an additional status -id, PO = allocated portable, and something to tag the NLRI at routers (so that we can filter it, trigger it, and so on). If this would work we could assign portable space a short as we want (and save address space), and aggregate it efficiently to keep the routing table growth at minimum. Jorma From netmaster at space.net Tue May 22 15:58:27 2001 From: netmaster at space.net (Gert Doering, Netmaster) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:58:27 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: ; from cfriacas@fccn.pt on Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:16:32PM +0100 References: <200105211649.SAA10823@office.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20010522155827.V3919@Space.Net> Hi, (originally I did not really want to participate in this discussion, as much of it has already been said in the last LIR-WG meeting). One thing got me thinking,though: On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:16:32PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: > /22 is a much more reasonable value by my view... Be careful what you are asking for. If we assume that minimum allocation size will go down to a /22, and further assume that one fourth of the full IPv4 address range will subsequently be handed out *and announced* as /22's, this means we will see ( 1/4 * 2^22 ) = 1048576 /22's announced in the global BGP table. That's over a million BGP routing table entries. This will have a significant effect on BGP routing stability and also on the costs of global routing - you need a Gig of RAM in all the BGP routers (on distributed architectures, more than that). The CPU power required to handle a flap of a major line in a timely fashion (to keep BGP convergence times low) will be horrendous. Also, it can be assumed that in this case, the global topology will become complex enough so that most of the time many of the smaller ASes won't be reachable anyway due to problems "on the way". I think this is something I do NOT want to see. So, what is my conclusion? I estimate that while IPv4 address exhaustion is going to be a problem (which IPv6 will solve), the routing topology will cause major problems *sooner* than IPv4 runs out, and we should do something against this. By this, I mean: - strongly encourage people to renumber from historic PI space to PA space from their ISPs network block (and return the PI space to the RIRs, to be aggregated) - stop handing out PI space - discourage "end users" from using multihoming with globally visible address space (there are other ways, like "get multiple uplinks to different POPs of the same ISP, and have them sign a SLA that will get you 99.9% reachability or money back"). - discourage people from becoming LIR if that's only to get "portable" address space, with no intention of handing PA space out to customers. Yes, this might sound a bit harsh, but I'm *really* worried about routeability and reachability of anything in the next couple of years. Now go and flame me... :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From dp at planning.viaginterkom.de Tue May 22 16:34:06 2001 From: dp at planning.viaginterkom.de (Dave Pratt) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:34:06 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: <20010522155827.V3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hiya all, I agree completely with Gert. Not everyone can have a globally routable address block just so they can be multihomed. At the very least we need considerable obstacles to prevent everyone from trying to achieve this. Either we must charge $ for this benefit (I dislike this option too), or we must make rules to prevent excessive growth in the routing table, or we can do as we have so far (make the process so complex that folks give up before they succeed !!!). The problem I see is agreeing on the rules to prevent excessive growth. Just deciding what is excessive growth is hard enough. When these rules are determined, in my view they also need applying identically to the IPv6 address space. Cheers Dave On Tue, 22 May 2001, Gert Doering, Netmaster wrote: ->Hi, -> ->(originally I did not really want to participate in this discussion, ->as much of it has already been said in the last LIR-WG meeting). -> ->One thing got me thinking,though: -> ->On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:16:32PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: ->> /22 is a much more reasonable value by my view... -> ->Be careful what you are asking for. -> ->If we assume that minimum allocation size will go down to a /22, and ->further assume that one fourth of the full IPv4 address range will ->subsequently be handed out *and announced* as /22's, this means we ->will see ( 1/4 * 2^22 ) = 1048576 /22's announced in the global BGP ->table. That's over a million BGP routing table entries. -> ->This will have a significant effect on BGP routing stability and ->also on the costs of global routing - you need a Gig of RAM in all ->the BGP routers (on distributed architectures, more than that). The ->CPU power required to handle a flap of a major line in a timely fashion ->(to keep BGP convergence times low) will be horrendous. -> ->Also, it can be assumed that in this case, the global topology will ->become complex enough so that most of the time many of the smaller ->ASes won't be reachable anyway due to problems "on the way". -> ->I think this is something I do NOT want to see. -> -> ->So, what is my conclusion? I estimate that while IPv4 address exhaustion ->is going to be a problem (which IPv6 will solve), the routing topology ->will cause major problems *sooner* than IPv4 runs out, and we should ->do something against this. By this, I mean: -> -> - strongly encourage people to renumber from historic PI space to -> PA space from their ISPs network block (and return the PI space -> to the RIRs, to be aggregated) -> -> - stop handing out PI space -> -> - discourage "end users" from using multihoming with globally visible -> address space (there are other ways, like "get multiple uplinks -> to different POPs of the same ISP, and have them sign a SLA that -> will get you 99.9% reachability or money back"). -> -> - discourage people from becoming LIR if that's only to get "portable" -> address space, with no intention of handing PA space out to customers. -> ->Yes, this might sound a bit harsh, but I'm *really* worried about ->routeability and reachability of anything in the next couple of years. -> ->Now go and flame me... :-) -> ->Gert Doering -> -- NetMaster ->-- ->SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net ->Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 ->80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 -> -> -> From Bert.vanHogeloon at colt-telecom.nl Tue May 22 17:11:10 2001 From: Bert.vanHogeloon at colt-telecom.nl (Hogeloon, Bert van) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:11:10 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation Message-ID: Hi, On Tuesday, May 22, 2001 15:58, Gert Doering, Netmaster [SMTP:netmaster at space.net] wrote: > Hi, > > (originally I did not really want to participate in this discussion, > as much of it has already been said in the last LIR-WG meeting). > > One thing got me thinking,though: > > On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:16:32PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: > > /22 is a much more reasonable value by my view... > > Be careful what you are asking for. > > If we assume that minimum allocation size will go down to a /22, and > further assume that one fourth of the full IPv4 address range will > subsequently be handed out *and announced* as /22's, this means we > will see ( 1/4 * 2^22 ) = 1048576 /22's announced in the global BGP > table. That's over a million BGP routing table entries. I agree this is a concern, but it's always better then having the same amount of /20's in the table. I agree that we have to guard that potential 'real' LIR's do not start off with a /22, but that is also already achieved by reserving contiguous address space for a certain amount of time. The point is, would the NCC also decrease this reservation mechanism? > > This will have a significant effect on BGP routing stability and > also on the costs of global routing - you need a Gig of RAM in all > the BGP routers (on distributed architectures, more than that). The > CPU power required to handle a flap of a major line in a timely fashion > (to keep BGP convergence times low) will be horrendous. > > Also, it can be assumed that in this case, the global topology will > become complex enough so that most of the time many of the smaller > ASes won't be reachable anyway due to problems "on the way". > > I think this is something I do NOT want to see. > > > So, what is my conclusion? I estimate that while IPv4 address exhaustion > is going to be a problem (which IPv6 will solve), the routing topology > will cause major problems *sooner* than IPv4 runs out, and we should > do something against this. By this, I mean: IPv6 solves the exhaustion problem, but does it solve the multihoming problem? You would still have a lot of small companies wanting 'routable' address space. Getting PA address space makes you dependable on the routing table of at least one provider and thus doesn't guarantee you redundancy. > > - strongly encourage people to renumber from historic PI space to > PA space from their ISPs network block (and return the PI space > to the RIRs, to be aggregated) > > - stop handing out PI space > > - discourage "end users" from using multihoming with globally visible > address space (there are other ways, like "get multiple uplinks > to different POPs of the same ISP, and have them sign a SLA that > will get you 99.9% reachability or money back"). That is not really the same. For many companies, an outage of a few days can mean that they are out of business. Having your money back is then your least concern. The fact is that disasters do happen to every ISP once in a while and a lot of company's want to protect themselves from that. I don't think you really can discourage that. > > - discourage people from becoming LIR if that's only to get "portable" > address space, with no intention of handing PA space out to customers. That's nice, but you'll have to be able to offer them a good alternative. There are a few good alternatives (like NAT), but not all of these are workable for everybody. > > Yes, this might sound a bit harsh, but I'm *really* worried about > routeability and reachability of anything in the next couple of years. I agree it can create huge problems and we have to be careful, but the fact is multihoming is a huge dilemma for a lot of small company's (small of course in the sense of size of IP address space). Regards, Bert van Hogeloon > > Now go and flame me... :-) > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > From hph at online.no Tue May 22 17:37:11 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:37:11 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation References: Message-ID: <00b301c0e2d5$11ee1160$ed05e1c3@hph> | Hello. | | /22 is a much more reasonable value by my view... what percentage of | members are ISPs ? :-) | Perhaps its possible to typify in some way the organizations that actually | do the requests, and start using different minimum PA allocation sizes. | For instance... an ISP could get the minimal PA allocation of /20 the same | way, but a bank or an insurance company, that normally represents a client | for an ISP, could have a different minimal (and shorter!) PA allocation. The purpose of this proposal was to make it more difficult for small organisations to become a separate LIR in order to reduce the workload on the RIPE NCC. It will be a good ting for address space conservation, and it will be a got thing for routing table size to "force" more organisations to go to one of their upstream providers. I do not think it is a good idea to make a smaller initial allocation size. -hph From hph at online.no Tue May 22 17:37:40 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:37:40 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010522094928.00aead20@max.ibm.net.il> Message-ID: <00bb01c0e2d5$23005670$ed05e1c3@hph> | Much more important than working out the details of what criteria qualify | you for a /22 would be what criteria will cause RIPE to revoke the /22 it | has assigned. The proposal was that in order to qualify for a "standard /20 PA block" you would need to >- Demonstrated efficient utilisation of a /xx (/22?) >Or >- Immediate need for a /xx (/22?) > >- Agree to renumber (Required? Recommended?) So the proposal is that in order to get a /20 you need to provide documentation that you need some percentage of that adress space (25%). As current policy states, the assignments you make from this allocation are only valid for as long as the criteria it was assigned under is stil valid. While I agree that it at some point would be interesting to discuss how to be more agressive reclaiming address space, I would urge the WG to focus on the proposal from RIPE NCC: - should we introduce a creiteria for PA allocations - if so what should that criteria be. -hph From netmaster at space.net Tue May 22 17:42:10 2001 From: netmaster at space.net (Gert Doering, Netmaster) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:42:10 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: ; from Bert.vanHogeloon@colt-telecom.nl on Tue, May 22, 2001 at 05:11:10PM +0200 References: Message-ID: <20010522174210.X3919@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 05:11:10PM +0200, Hogeloon, Bert van wrote: > > If we assume that minimum allocation size will go down to a /22, and > > further assume that one fourth of the full IPv4 address range will > > subsequently be handed out *and announced* as /22's, this means we > > will see ( 1/4 * 2^22 ) = 1048576 /22's announced in the global BGP > > table. That's over a million BGP routing table entries. > > I agree this is a concern, but it's always better then having the same > amount of /20's in the table. With /20's, again assuming one fourth of the total IPv4 range being announced as /20, you'll only get 262144 prefixes, which is a LOT less (you can't get one million /20's due to the limited amount of IPv4 addresses). [..] > > So, what is my conclusion? I estimate that while IPv4 address exhaustion > > is going to be a problem (which IPv6 will solve), the routing topology > > will cause major problems *sooner* than IPv4 runs out, and we should > > do something against this. By this, I mean: > > IPv6 solves the exhaustion problem, but does it solve the multihoming > problem? No, which is exactly what I wrote. I think the emphasis today should not be on "conservation of the last single IPv4 address" but on "develop something that will scale routing to a vastly larger address space". > You would still have a lot of small companies wanting 'routable' > address space. Getting PA address space makes you dependable on the routing > table of at least one provider and thus doesn't guarantee you redundancy. Getting PI space guarantees that you will NOT be reachable by some parts of the internet today, and it's likely that you won't be reachable by larger parts in a few years. Having PI space doesn't guarantee you *anything*, especially not "redundancy", or "reachability". In this multihoming discussion, one should not overlook what people hope to gain by doing it. Most of them want "99.9999 per cent internet availability". Multihoming with globally visible address space might sound like a good way to achieve this, but it might not be the best. All it means is that you need someone (expensive) to maintain your routers, your BGP setup, and tune all the lose ends if something isn't routed optimally. And if one of your upstream providers really messes things up (like blackholing your traffic accidently), you've lost connectivity to a large part of the net nonetheless. So one of the issues is "how can we improve people's internet connection's reliability without multihoming with a globally visible address space". Having multiple upstreams with multile PA assignements and doing DNS round robin (with a low TTL) is one way. Having many lines to one upstream ISP - to different POPs - and a 99.99999% guaranteed SLA is another way. > > - strongly encourage people to renumber from historic PI space to > > PA space from their ISPs network block (and return the PI space > > to the RIRs, to be aggregated) > > > > - stop handing out PI space > > > > - discourage "end users" from using multihoming with globally visible > > address space (there are other ways, like "get multiple uplinks > > to different POPs of the same ISP, and have them sign a SLA that > > will get you 99.9% reachability or money back"). > > That is not really the same. For many companies, an outage of a few days can > mean that they are out of business. Having your money back is then your > least concern. So how do you guarantee "you can reach 99% of the Internet 99% of the time" if you do BGP multihoming? You can't. For those companies, having redundant computing centres, connected to different ISPs, and using different address space (PA) might actually lead to better reliability... > The fact is that disasters do happen to every ISP once in a while and a lot > of company's want to protect themselves from that. I don't think you really > can discourage that. While I can understand why people want this, it means that the chances for desasters actually increase a lot *due* to all those people. Like "routers crashing due to RAM overflow". Like "bogon routes announced all over the world due to incorrect filters", and so on. > > - discourage people from becoming LIR if that's only to get "portable" > > address space, with no intention of handing PA space out to customers. > > That's nice, but you'll have to be able to offer them a good alternative. Why? Just because that's the way it has always been? (Not being overly cooperative today :-) ) [..] Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From gert at space.net Tue May 22 21:31:12 2001 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 21:31:12 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: <00bb01c0e2d5$23005670$ed05e1c3@hph>; from hph@online.no on Tue, May 22, 2001 at 05:37:40PM +0200 References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010522094928.00aead20@max.ibm.net.il> <00bb01c0e2d5$23005670$ed05e1c3@hph> Message-ID: <20010522213112.H17832@Space.Net> Hi, seems I got carried away :-) On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 05:37:40PM +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > | Much more important than working out the details of what criteria qualify > | you for a /22 would be what criteria will cause RIPE to revoke the /22 it > | has assigned. > > The proposal was that in order to qualify for a "standard /20 PA block" > you would need to > > >- Demonstrated efficient utilisation of a /xx (/22?) > >Or > >- Immediate need for a /xx (/22?) > > > >- Agree to renumber (Required? Recommended?) > > So the proposal is that in order to get a /20 you need to provide > documentation that you need some percentage of that adress space (25%). This is similar to the ARIN policy. I think it makes sense - if you are not able to fill a /22, your network is "smallish". So using PA space and renumbering when changing ISPs is not *that* hard, if done properly (DHCP, DNS, no hard-coded IP addresses anywhere). If you're actually doing LIR work (that is: hand out addresses to third parties), documenting this should also be possible. > While I agree that it at some point would be interesting to discuss how to > be more agressive reclaiming address space, I would urge the WG to focus on > the proposal from RIPE NCC: > - should we introduce a creiteria for PA allocations > - if so what should that criteria be. I'm not so sure on the "should we", but if yes, the above criteria are a good thing. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From hph at online.no Tue May 22 22:55:32 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 22:55:32 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation References: <72998.990562522@critter> Message-ID: <002101c0e301$8b591f00$0600000a@hph> | >I think it makes sense - if you are not able to fill a /22, your network | >is "smallish". So using PA space and renumbering when changing ISPs is | >not *that* hard, if done properly (DHCP, DNS, no hard-coded IP addresses | >anywhere). | | I know several companies who would be willing to renumber once per year | as long as they can be multihomed... Why should I have to renumber once a year to be multi-homed ? -hph From phk at critter.freebsd.dk Tue May 22 22:15:22 2001 From: phk at critter.freebsd.dk (Poul-Henning Kamp) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 22:15:22 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 May 2001 21:31:12 +0200." <20010522213112.H17832@Space.Net> Message-ID: <72998.990562522@critter> In message <20010522213112.H17832 at Space.Net>, Gert Doering writes: >Hi, > >seems I got carried away :-) > >On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 05:37:40PM +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote: >> | Much more important than working out the details of what criteria qualify >> | you for a /22 would be what criteria will cause RIPE to revoke the /22 it >> | has assigned. >> >> The proposal was that in order to qualify for a "standard /20 PA block" >> you would need to >> >> >- Demonstrated efficient utilisation of a /xx (/22?) >> >Or >> >- Immediate need for a /xx (/22?) >> > >> >- Agree to renumber (Required? Recommended?) >> >> So the proposal is that in order to get a /20 you need to provide >> documentation that you need some percentage of that adress space (25%). > >This is similar to the ARIN policy. > >I think it makes sense - if you are not able to fill a /22, your network >is "smallish". So using PA space and renumbering when changing ISPs is >not *that* hard, if done properly (DHCP, DNS, no hard-coded IP addresses >anywhere). I know several companies who would be willing to renumber once per year as long as they can be multihomed... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk at FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. From cfriacas at fccn.pt Tue May 22 22:14:12 2001 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 21:14:12 +0100 (WEST) Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: <20010522155827.V3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Tue, 22 May 2001, Gert Doering, Netmaster wrote: > Hi, > > (originally I did not really want to participate in this discussion, > as much of it has already been said in the last LIR-WG meeting). > > One thing got me thinking,though: > > On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:16:32PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: > > /22 is a much more reasonable value by my view... > > Be careful what you are asking for. By lowering the "minimum" PA allocation for "non-ISPs" i wasnt thinking about getting more fragmentation... I was seeing that "minimum" <> "initial" too... > If we assume that minimum allocation size will go down to a /22, and > further assume that one fourth of the full IPv4 address range will > subsequently be handed out *and announced* as /22's, this means we > will see ( 1/4 * 2^22 ) = 1048576 /22's announced in the global BGP > table. That's over a million BGP routing table entries. > > This will have a significant effect on BGP routing stability and > also on the costs of global routing - you need a Gig of RAM in all > the BGP routers (on distributed architectures, more than that). The > CPU power required to handle a flap of a major line in a timely fashion > (to keep BGP convergence times low) will be horrendous. 100% agree... i dont like to see it get much more bigger... > Also, it can be assumed that in this case, the global topology will > become complex enough so that most of the time many of the smaller > ASes won't be reachable anyway due to problems "on the way". > > I think this is something I do NOT want to see. > > > So, what is my conclusion? I estimate that while IPv4 address exhaustion > is going to be a problem (which IPv6 will solve), the routing topology > will cause major problems *sooner* than IPv4 runs out, and we should > do something against this. By this, I mean: > > - strongly encourage people to renumber from historic PI space to > PA space from their ISPs network block (and return the PI space > to the RIRs, to be aggregated) :-) the finest way would be turning it "mandatory"... i know this problem very well, as i've already done too much work recovering some 192.x.x.x still given by ARIN... :-) I still didnt finish this on my clients because some of them see it as a "RESOURCE", and some are trying to X*Y valid addrissing by only returning X address space... :-( > - stop handing out PI space :-) well... could RIPE just talk to registered ISPs...? I think this is very, very hard thing... > - discourage "end users" from using multihoming with globally visible > address space (there are other ways, like "get multiple uplinks > to different POPs of the same ISP, and have them sign a SLA that > will get you 99.9% reachability or money back"). this brings one question... is this way cheaper or not ? i've heard of some cases that a "end user" who is also a LIR got his address space "divided" (originated) between two ISPs and on the inside they somehow manage the situation... but this doesnt guarantee redundancy to their full address space, of course... > - discourage people from becoming LIR if that's only to get "portable" > address space, with no intention of handing PA space out to customers. no customers = no ISP ? > Yes, this might sound a bit harsh, but I'm *really* worried about > routeability and reachability of anything in the next couple of years. Yep... i see more than 104.000... > Now go and flame me... :-) That's not the intention of it. > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" ------------------- , CMF8-RIPE, Wide Area Network WorkGroup http://www.fccn.pt F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax: +351 218472167 From cfriacas at fccn.pt Tue May 22 22:24:43 2001 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 21:24:43 +0100 (WEST) Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 22 May 2001, Dave Pratt wrote: > Hiya all, > > I agree completely with Gert. > > Not everyone can have a globally routable address block just so they can be > multihomed. > > At the very least we need considerable obstacles to prevent everyone from > trying to achieve this. > > Either we must charge $ for this benefit (I dislike this option too), or we > must make rules to prevent excessive growth in the routing table, or we can do > as we have so far (make the process so complex that folks give up before they > succeed !!!). I think this is an excellent idea... number of peers could be a criteria, but we would have to keep in mind some countries dimensions... Here, having 20 peers is very good, but i think in .de or in .uk, that number would indicate a "small AS", no ? This # of peers criteria would also give entities already with an ASN some "control" about new ASNs... perhaps this would be against any anti-trust law... > The problem I see is agreeing on the rules to prevent excessive growth. Just > deciding what is excessive growth is hard enough. Yes, as i was saying... different countries, different dimensions... but what we have seen here is that the market tends to regulate itself... some ISPs will probably disappear or will be bought by bigger ones. > When these rules are determined, in my view they also need applying > identically to the IPv6 address space. Sure. Doing otherwise would be a great mistake... i remember someone once said... "640kb will be much more than we will ever need!" ;-) > Cheers > Dave Regards, ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" ------------------- , CMF8-RIPE, Wide Area Network WorkGroup http://www.fccn.pt F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax: +351 218472167 From cfriacas at fccn.pt Tue May 22 22:50:09 2001 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 21:50:09 +0100 (WEST) Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: <20010522174210.X3919@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Tue, 22 May 2001, Gert Doering, Netmaster wrote: > While I can understand why people want this, it means that the chances > for desasters actually increase a lot *due* to all those people. Like > "routers crashing due to RAM overflow". Like "bogon routes announced > all over the world due to incorrect filters", and so on. > > > > - discourage people from becoming LIR if that's only to get "portable" > > > address space, with no intention of handing PA space out to customers. > > > > That's nice, but you'll have to be able to offer them a good alternative. > > Why? Just because that's the way it has always been? (Not being overly > cooperative today :-) ) Well, i tend to agree more with Gert... We reduce portability in order to gain on aggregability and getting the global routing table as shorter as we can... Perhaps if the "lazy people" could be forced to start using all the alternatives to valid IP addresses we could get a greater improve... Lack of knowledge about CIDR is also a big problem... i see some things today that i really shouldnt see... I know that they ("dumb & lazy people") are getting the money in, but if it could be explained to them that they will have to "fund" even more because the global routing table is growing the way it is... they could get convinced... (but anyway, the router manufacturers wouldnt like this idea! ;-) ) I still didnt see one of my questions answered... is there anyway of sweeping through ASNs to find the people that have them, and dont make a "valid" use of those ASNs ? (Im thinking about those people that only have one BGP peering, and those cases of companies buying others and just maintaining 2 or more ASNs...) And if someone looses their ASN, what the problem about getting a new one later if it can be properly justified ??? One other thing i would like to see would be an "European Initiative to give back PIs space to ARIN" :-) I got an OK from RIPE to exchange "X" PI space for "X" PA space from my LIR, but this hasnt solved the whole lot of my cases... but then again... my clients are too complex ! :-) > [..] > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > > Thanks for your patience. Regards, ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" ------------------- , CMF8-RIPE, Wide Area Network WorkGroup http://www.fccn.pt F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax: +351 218472167 From phk at critter.freebsd.dk Tue May 22 23:02:41 2001 From: phk at critter.freebsd.dk (Poul-Henning Kamp) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:02:41 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 May 2001 22:55:32 +0200." <002101c0e301$8b591f00$0600000a@hph> Message-ID: <73631.990565361@critter> In message <002101c0e301$8b591f00$0600000a at hph>, "Hans Petter Holen" writes: >| >I think it makes sense - if you are not able to fill a /22, your network >| >is "smallish". So using PA space and renumbering when changing ISPs is >| >not *that* hard, if done properly (DHCP, DNS, no hard-coded IP addresses >| >anywhere). >| >| I know several companies who would be willing to renumber once per year >| as long as they can be multihomed... > >Why should I have to renumber once a year to be multi-homed ? I'm not saying you should, I'm saying people are willing to it. To me that indicates that we are not looking at the problem right now, but on a symptom of the >real< problem. I think the solution to the real problem is to find a better method for assignment of routable IPs to multihomed customers. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk at FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Wed May 23 09:59:10 2001 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:59:10 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation Message-ID: <009FC6F7.7A5E2BB6.5@cc.univie.ac.at> Just some observations... => So, what is my conclusion? I estimate that while IPv4 address exhaustion => is going to be a problem (which IPv6 will solve), the routing topology => will cause major problems *sooner* than IPv4 runs out, and we should => do something against this. By this, I mean: => => - strongly encourage people to renumber from historic PI space to => PA space from their ISPs network block (and return the PI space => to the RIRs, to be aggregated) = :-) the finest way would be turning it "mandatory"... =i know this problem very well, as i've already done too much work =recovering some 192.x.x.x still given by ARIN... :-) This ship has left the harbour many moons ago... You can no longer honestly advocate that path to any site (without the support of _all_ ISP on the routing layer - which I expect to be nil) when the rules for obtaining address space in general, and PI in particular, have been tightened and can be expected to become even more restrictive in the future. =I still didnt finish this on my clients because some of them see it as a ="RESOURCE", and some are trying to X*Y valid addrissing by only returning =X address space... :-( they got it ;-) => - stop handing out PI space = =:-) well... could RIPE just talk to registered ISPs...? =I think this is very, very hard thing... Only a short while ago the community agreed that it is not reasonably possible to define what an ISP is. => - discourage people from becoming LIR if that's only to get "portable" => address space, with no intention of handing PA space out to customers. = =no customers = no ISP ? Be careful. You run into the same problem here, trying to define what a "customer" is. Just another aspect here, we tend to _again_ mix the concepts and responsibities of RIRs, LIRs and ISPs for the Internet (mind the capital "I" here). The ISPs collaboratively operating the Internet are responsible for the routing aspects. However, this should not prevent anyone for becoming an LIR and/or from obtaining globally unique IPv4 addresses - as long as they can document a need for them. This need does not necessarily involve connectivity to the Internet. Building an internet should be enough. => Yes, this might sound a bit harsh, but I'm *really* worried about => routeability and reachability of anything in the next couple of years. = =Yep... i see more than 104.000... Well, for the moment I consider that point moot. For quite a while the information has been made available (T.B., pfs reports) where the Internet could be improved (routing-wise) by e.g. aggregating and/or removing excessive announcements. In reality nobody really seesm to care (more than uttering their disgust :-), otherwise we would see real activity to get the broken ASes fixed (or filtered or disconnected), and an improvement. => Now go and flame me... :-) = =That's not the intention of it. = => Gert Doering => -- NetMaster => -- => SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net => Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 => 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 => = =./Carlos = "Networking is fun!" =------------------- =, CMF8-RIPE, Wide Area Network WorkGroup http://www.fccn.pt =F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax: +351 218472167 Wilfried. _________________________________:_____________________________________ 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From Bert.vanHogeloon at colt-telecom.nl Wed May 23 09:51:31 2001 From: Bert.vanHogeloon at colt-telecom.nl (Hogeloon, Bert van) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:51:31 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation Message-ID: On Tuesday, May 22, 2001 23:03, Poul-Henning Kamp [SMTP:phk at critter.freebsd.dk] wrote: > In message <002101c0e301$8b591f00$0600000a at hph>, "Hans Petter Holen" writes: > >| >I think it makes sense - if you are not able to fill a /22, your network > >| >is "smallish". So using PA space and renumbering when changing ISPs is > >| >not *that* hard, if done properly (DHCP, DNS, no hard-coded IP addresses > >| >anywhere). > >| > >| I know several companies who would be willing to renumber once per year > >| as long as they can be multihomed... > > > >Why should I have to renumber once a year to be multi-homed ? > > I'm not saying you should, I'm saying people are willing to it. > > To me that indicates that we are not looking at the problem right > now, but on a symptom of the >real< problem. > > I think the solution to the real problem is to find a better method > for assignment of routable IPs to multihomed customers. Exactly. Allowing /22's to be allocated is probably not a good idea and certainly doesn't solve anything on the longer term. However imposing a certain amount of minimal usage doesn't also solve the real problem. The base rule for address assignments is that people ought to get what they technically need, no more and no less. The base rule for an allocation is that people should get one if they technically need one. They will need to explain this in their application for a LIR. The only problem of course is what are the technical criteria for this. For a start we could ask the potential LIR to specify why he is not able to use any alternative method and only grant the allocation if he is able to provide a satisfying answer or if he can justify a minimal usage of a /22 (within 2 years time?) I don't think that there is a need for justifying why the person wants to be multi-homed. Even if it's not a good reason, everybody should have the freedom choosing multiple ISP's. How are we going to apply those rules in IPv6 BTW? Justifying the usage of a quarter of the minimal allocation is going to be difficult for anyone. Regards, Bert > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > phk at FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. From gert at space.net Wed May 23 10:58:46 2001 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:58:46 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: <009FC6F7.7A5E2BB6.5@cc.univie.ac.at>; from woeber@cc.univie.ac.at on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:59:10AM +0200 References: <009FC6F7.7A5E2BB6.5@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20010523105846.V17832@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:59:10AM +0200, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > => Yes, this might sound a bit harsh, but I'm *really* worried about > => routeability and reachability of anything in the next couple of years. > = > =Yep... i see more than 104.000... > > Well, for the moment I consider that point moot. > > For quite a while the information has been made available (T.B., pfs > reports) where the Internet could be improved (routing-wise) by e.g. > aggregating and/or removing excessive announcements. In reality nobody > really seesm to care (more than uttering their disgust :-), otherwise we > would see real activity to get the broken ASes fixed (or filtered or > disconnected), and an improvement. We started recently to filter all prefixes longer than /24, and publically announced this to the various IX mailing lists we're participating. This got some discussion started, and some other ISPs here also stated that they are doing it, or will start "soon". This doesn't really help much, though, against broken CIDR announcements (announcing a /19 and lots of more-specifics out of it) from ISPs that Just Don't Care. I don't really know how to attack that can of worms - filtering all their /24's doesn't break their routing, so they couldn't care less. Stopping peering with them hurts us as well, so that's not the road to go either. :-( Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From phk at critter.freebsd.dk Wed May 23 11:13:23 2001 From: phk at critter.freebsd.dk (Poul-Henning Kamp) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:13:23 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 May 2001 09:51:31 +0200." Message-ID: <80207.990609203@critter> In message , "Hogeloon, Bert van" writes: >I don't think that there is a need for justifying why the person wants to be >multi-homed. Even if it's not a good reason, everybody should have the >freedom choosing multiple ISP's. Maybe this is the way we should attack the problem ? Rather than allocating /22 to each customer who wants to be multihomed, why not allocated the /22 jointly to the two ISP's to use for this and other future multihomed customers ? At least it scales a lot better routing wise... In all likelyhood, we could even generate a new market where ISP's team up and offer multihoming as a service without exploding the routing tables... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk at FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. From hank at att.net.il Wed May 23 12:38:41 2001 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:38:41 +0200 Subject: Proponents take IPv6 off its pedestal Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010523123721.00ad7100@max.att.net.il> http://www.nwfusion.com/archive/2001/120951_05-21-2001.html -Hank From mjrobinson at genuity.net Wed May 23 12:41:51 2001 From: mjrobinson at genuity.net (Matthew J Robinson) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:41:51 +0100 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 May 2001 11:13:23 +0200." <80207.990609203@critter> Message-ID: A lot of the problem seems to boil down to education of the customer. Last year I suggested a method of creating multihomed-ness without the need for customers to use a public AS and lots of address space. A few people commented on it. It transpired that the technique had been suggested before by other people as well. http://uk.geocities.com/maff2k/multi.doc It's by no means finished and I haven't done any more to it since last year. If we can get customers to adopt different methods of multihoming then we should be able to solve the problem. Otherwise we might as well accept that the routing table is going to explode :-( Matthew From hank at att.net.il Wed May 23 13:38:09 2001 From: hank at att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:38:09 +0200 Subject: RPSL - what is going on? In-Reply-To: References: <200105101012.MAA18734@office.ripe.net> <200105101012.MAA18734@office.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010523131959.00aa8100@max.att.net.il> I've gone through all the RPSL pages listed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/db/rpsl/index.html and am starting to wonder if its me that can't work with RPSL or everyone else. The documents on that page above have no consistency. Some are PDF, some are HTML. Response time for getting a response to a reported problem is about 5-7 days. There is no page of bugs found and what is still a bug and what has been fixed (ala Cisco Release Notes). For example, I lost 5 days when I couldn't create a nic-hdl. Turns out I was sending it in as "nic-hdl: auto-1" and there is a bug where lower case "auto-1" doesn't work and one has to use all uppercase. Now I have lost a day on fixing up an aut-num. I am trying to send in an update as follows: >export: to AS2686 announce AS3339 AS6810 AS6875 AS8958 AS9117 AS12736 > > >***Error: valid lines start with attribute names, spaces or # I have tried with the export tag on one line as well as split on two lines as follows: export: to AS2686 announce AS3339 AS6810 AS6875 AS8958 AS9117 AS12736 I just can't get auto-rpsl to accept the export tags. Sorry for the crossposting but I am wondering whether I am the only one who is hitting all these problems? Thanks, Hank From roland at linx.net Wed May 23 10:44:07 2001 From: roland at linx.net (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:44:07 +0100 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , Carlos Friacas writes >i remember someone once >said... "640kb will be much more than we will ever need!" ;-) It was, of course, a weak justification of an earlier address space exhaustion: splitting the 1MByte address space of a 16bit cpu into 16 "slots" of 64K, 10 for RAM and 6 for ROM/Peripherals. With hindsight 12/4 might have been a better choice - the moral being it was unfortunate that the split was inflexible. -- Roland Perry From ncc at ripe.net Wed May 23 14:49:52 2001 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:49:52 +0200 Subject: New Document available: RIPE-222 Message-ID: <200105231249.OAA23281@office.ripe.net> New/Revised RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-222 Title: Smallest RIPE NCC Allocation / Assignment Sizes Author: Joao Luis Silva Damas, Nurani Nimpuno Date: 22 May 2001 Format: PS=9509 TXT=1840 Obsoletes: ripe-211 Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: Short content description ------------------------- This document contains the size of the minimum and default allocations made by the RIPE NCC to users from CIDR blocks assigned to the RIPE NCC by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). The document is of special interest to routing engineers and network operators. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- The RIPE document store is available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-222.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-222.txt plain text version You can also access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW. RIPE-222 is available at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html Excuses for duplicate mails From aid at vianw.net Wed May 23 14:30:02 2001 From: aid at vianw.net (Adrian Bool) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:30:02 +0100 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01052313135001.04324@ewe.noc.u-net.net> On Wednesday 23 May 2001 11:41, Matthew J Robinson wrote: > It's by no means finished and I haven't done any more to it since last > year. > > If we can get customers to adopt different methods of multihoming then we > should be able to solve the problem. Otherwise we might as well accept that > the routing table is going to explode :-( I'm just think about routing table size - allowing customers to multi-home (and perferably load balance over both of their links) - and am not really worrying about IP space conservation. ie. basically thinking in an IPv6 world. As with Matt's document, ISPs that want to provide multi-homed service from co-operative pairs. There is no reason why an ISP connect be a participant in multiple pairs. When forming this relationship they go to RIPE and get a 'special' pair block of reasonable size - ie. large enough to fit a good number of potential customers. It would be great if a very large block could be set aside for this purpose so that such blocks are easily recognised. Both ISPs announce this block as a single route. This route will naturally be seen on the Internet sourced from two ASs - is that so bad? I can't think of it breaking BGP. Customers who purchase a multi-homed service from these ISPs get allocated an IP range within this block. Routing of the customer's block (which can be any size, but in an IPv6 world doesn't need to be that small...) can be done either by the ISPs statically routing to the customer or talking BGP to the customer with the customer using a 'private AS' as with Matt's document. The two ISPs advertise all more-specifc routes within this special block to each other - but no-one else. Should one of the customer links fail any traffic that does go to the failed provider should be transfered to the other ISP for delivery. As with everything, it has a few problems, If the customer wants to change either provider they need to re-number - which is not nice. It could be possible for ISP A to break, still announce the large special block and not have access to either the customer or ISP B - in which case ISP A could be blackholing the customer's data for some parts of the Internet - again not nice ;-( Oh, yeah, it requires someone to use ipv6 ;-) Regards, aid -- Adrian Bool | http://noc.vianetworks.net/ Director, Global Network | tel://+44.1925.484061/ VIA NET.WORKS Inc. | noc://+49.203.3093.1111/ From mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp Wed May 23 15:24:37 2001 From: mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 22:23:37 +0859 () Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: <01052313135001.04324@ewe.noc.u-net.net> from Adrian Bool at "May 23, 2001 01:30:02 pm" Message-ID: <200105231323.WAA14140@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Adrian; > I'm just think about routing table size - allowing customers to multi-home > (and perferably load balance over both of their links) - and am not really > worrying about IP space conservation. ie. basically thinking in an IPv6 > world. So, global routing table size should be <<10K. > If the customer wants to change either provider they need to re-number - > which is not nice. > > It could be possible for ISP A to break, still announce the large special > block and not have access to either the customer or ISP B - in which case ISP > A could be blackholing the customer's data for some parts of the Internet - > again not nice ;-( > > Oh, yeah, it requires someone to use ipv6 ;-) A serious problem is that there are many tuples of ISPs. Masataka Ohta From vovik at lucky.net Wed May 23 16:54:06 2001 From: vovik at lucky.net (Vladimir A. Jakovenko) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:54:06 +0300 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: <200105211649.SAA10823@office.ripe.net>; from ncc@ripe.net on Mon, May 21, 2001 at 06:49:24PM +0200 References: <200105211649.SAA10823@office.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20010523175406.A41040@lucky.net> On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 06:49:24PM +0200, RIPE NCC Staff wrote: >Dear all, [..skipped..] >With an increased demand for independence and multi-homing, the RIPE >NCC can see the consequences of this in the impressive membership >growth in the last years: > >New LIRs set up per year: >1997: 262 >1998: 446 >1999: 525 >2000: 865 >2001: 997 (projected, end of year) Do you have similar statistics about PI assignments per year? -- Regards, Vladimir. From engin at ripe.net Wed May 23 17:04:37 2001 From: engin at ripe.net (Engin Gunduz) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:04:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: RPSL - what is going on? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010523131959.00aa8100@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: Dear Hank, all, On Wed, 23 May 2001, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > I've gone through all the RPSL pages listed at: > http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/db/rpsl/index.html > and am starting to wonder if its me that can't work with RPSL or everyone else. > > The documents on that page above have no consistency. Some are PDF, some > are HTML. > > Response time for getting a response to a reported problem is about 5-7 days. The response time on mailbox is indeed higher than usual, but we are trying to give more priority to solving problems related to new software and urgent problems. > > There is no page of bugs found and what is still a bug and what has been > fixed (ala Cisco Release Notes). For example, I lost 5 days when I > couldn't create a nic-hdl. Turns out I was sending it in as "nic-hdl: > auto-1" and there is a bug where lower case "auto-1" doesn't work and one > has to use all uppercase. Such a bugs page will be prepared shortly in our external web site. For the record: The auto NIC handle problem has been solved already. Auto NIC handles are now case-insensitive. > > Now I have lost a day on fixing up an aut-num. I am trying to send in an > update as follows: > > >export: to AS2686 announce AS3339 AS6810 AS6875 AS8958 AS9117 AS12736 > > > > > >***Error: valid lines start with attribute names, spaces or # > > I have tried with the export tag on one line as well as split on two lines > as follows: > export: to AS2686 > announce AS3339 AS6810 AS6875 AS8958 AS9117 AS12736 I've digged our logs, and the object you've sent was something like: [..] import: from AS16370 action pref=100; accept ANY export: to AS2686 announce AS3339 AS6810 AS6875 AS8958 AS9117 AS12736 AS12818 AS15708 AS15975 AS16158 AS16370 export: to AS5585 announce AS3339 AS6810 AS6875 AS8958 AS9117 AS12736 AS12818 AS15708 AS15975 AS16158 AS16370 [..] Here, we must leave a white space in the beginning of continuation lines, for example, instead of: export: to AS2686 announce AS3339 AS6810 AS6875 AS8958 AS9117 AS12736 AS12818 AS15708 AS15975 AS16158 AS16370 we must say: export: to AS2686 announce AS3339 AS6810 AS6875 AS8958 AS9117 AS12736 AS12818 AS15708 AS15975 AS16158 AS16370 or it is also possible to put '+' in the beginning of the continuation lines, like: export: to AS2686 announce AS3339 AS6810 AS6875 AS8958 AS9117 + AS12736 AS12818 AS15708 AS15975 AS16158 AS16370 I hope this helps. We are trying our best to fix the problems you encounter, and sorry for any inconvenience caused, Best regards, Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group > > I just can't get auto-rpsl to accept the export tags. > > Sorry for the crossposting but I am wondering whether I am the only one who > is hitting all these problems? > > Thanks, > Hank From nurani at ripe.net Wed May 23 17:35:34 2001 From: nurani at ripe.net (Nurani Nimpuno) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:35:34 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 23 May 2001 17:54:06 +0300. <20010523175406.A41040@lucky.net> References: <20010523175406.A41040@lucky.net> Message-ID: <200105231535.RAA01139@x7.ripe.net> Dear Vladimir, My whole presentation "Developing clear and realistic policy on Portable Address Space" can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/index.html In there I am presenting the following statistics on PI requests: 1998: 179 1999: 316 2000: 608 Cheers Nurani -- +------------------------------------+ | Nurani Nimpuno | | Registration Services Manager | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | | http://www.ripe.net | +------------------------------------+ "Vladimir A. Jakovenko" writes: * On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 06:49:24PM +0200, RIPE NCC Staff wrote: * >Dear all, * [..skipped..] * >With an increased demand for independence and multi-homing, the RIPE * >NCC can see the consequences of this in the impressive membership * >growth in the last years: * > * >New LIRs set up per year: * >1997: 262 * >1998: 446 * >1999: 525 * >2000: 865 * >2001: 997 (projected, end of year) * * Do you have similar statistics about PI assignments per year? * * -- * Regards, * Vladimir. * * * From huberman at gblx.net Wed May 23 19:52:24 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:52:24 -0700 (MST) Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: <00bb01c0e2d5$23005670$ed05e1c3@hph> Message-ID: > While I agree that it at some point would be interesting to discuss how to > be more agressive reclaiming address space, I would urge the WG to focus on > the proposal from RIPE NCC: > - should we introduce a creiteria for PA allocations > - if so what should that criteria be. RFC 2050 clearly outlines one of the primary responsibilities of the RIRs: conservation. Though this responsibility often does not reconcile with another primary responsibility, the stability of the routing infrastructure, it is nonetheless an important concept. RIPE's long-standing tradition of handing out /19s and /20s to all requestors, *regardless of actual need*, clearly irresponsibly violates the essential tenants of RFC 2050 - a document which is supposed to be the foundation of an RIR's address assignment policies. I implore the RIPE LIR-WG to support the NCC's current effort to better focus the PA and PI allocation guidelines on the principles so enumerated in RFC 2050. The current discussion in this thread, while interesting, does not appear to give sufficient feedback to the NCC staff trying to gauge consensus (or lack thereof). Thus, I urge you to reply to these messages with your professional opinions: (1) Do you agree or disagree that allocating /20s to every requestor who can justify an initial assignment is irresponsible? (2) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should consider establishing a policy by which an organization can only request a PA allocation if it can demonstrate the efficient utilization of an existing block of IP address space (as yet undefined - /22, /21, /20, etc.)? (3) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should implement a PI assignment policy establishing an assignment model consistent with the principles established for such assignments in RFC 2050 (25% utilization immediately, 50% utilization within one year)? [BTW, the NCC hasn't proposed (3). I'm just throwing it out there.] (4) Should organizations which are using a relatively small amount of address space be required to renumber in order to recieve a PA allocation from RIPE? /david From huberman at gblx.net Wed May 23 20:05:19 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:05:19 -0700 (MST) Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I need to put my own thoughts forward, too :> > (1) Do you agree or disagree that allocating /20s to every requestor who > can justify an initial assignment is irresponsible? Yes. It's enormously wasteful of a scarce resource and is one factor among many encouraging the RIPE NCC wait queue to be unacceptably long. > (2) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should consider establishing a > policy by which an organization can only request a PA allocation if it can > demonstrate the efficient utilization of an existing block of IP address > space (as yet undefined - /22, /21, /20, etc.)? YES! The RIPE community is sufficiently advanced that imposing a minimum existence on requestors should not be a burden to significant regional economic development. I believe the minimum utilization size should be a /21, not a /22 as intimated by one member of the NCC staff. Organizations requesting a /20 from RIPE should be held to the *same guidelines* as everyone else as outlined in RFC 2050 - slow-start. If REQUESTOR A is efficiently utilizing a /21, they are certainly entitled, in the slow-start model, to request a /20 for their upcoming growth. But if REQUESTOR B is utilizing a /22, they are only entitled to a /21, not a /20. A /22 is too insignificantly sized to gauge the justification for a full /20. A /21 is one exponential factor greater - a statistically relevant distinction. > (3) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should implement a PI assignment > policy establishing an assignment model consistent with the principles > established for such assignments in RFC 2050 (25% utilization immediately, > 50% utilization within one year)? Since I'm the one who is proposing it, ayep. It has been said here by many people that PI assignments should only be for exactly what an organization needs. I contend that an organization should be given some flexibility in regards to future growth. > (4) Should organizations which are using a relatively small amount of > address space be required to renumber in order to recieve a PA allocation > from RIPE? No. I think this is a fundamental flaw in the ARIN community's interpretations of RFC 2050 - it too heavily relies on the conservation principle and too easily discounts operational effects of such a policy. If ISP A is using a /21 from an upstream, and is able to justify a /20 from RIPE, the ISP should be entrusted to do what it wishes with the original /21 - return it, renumber it, keep it. The conservation principle is insignificantly served by forcing renumbering of /22s or /21s, in my opinion. Also, the administrative overhead of *enforcing* such a policy outweighs the benefit of the policy, in my opinion. It will encourage the wait queue to lengthen, not contract. /david From thinman at clp.cw.net Wed May 23 21:23:53 2001 From: thinman at clp.cw.net (Tanya Hinman) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 15:23:53 -0400 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > (2) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should consider establishing a > policy by which an organization can only request a PA allocation if it can > demonstrate the efficient utilization of an existing block of IP address > space (as yet undefined - /22, /21, /20, etc.)? I agree that there should be a policy and that it should be a minimum of a /21. > (3) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should implement a PI assignment > policy establishing an assignment model consistent with the principles > established for such assignments in RFC 2050 (25% utilization immediately, > 50% utilization within one year)? If RIPE is going to continue to assign PI space, then yes a policy should be established. We also need to consider what PI assignments are doing to the routing tables and whether there should be a minimum PI assignment size or whether RIPE should continue making PI assignments at all. > (4) Should organizations which are using a relatively small amount of > address space be required to renumber in order to recieve a PA allocation > from RIPE? I agree with David's opinion in regards to this question. If the organization has justified the address space from RIPE, then they should be able to decide what to do with their current Address space from their upstream provider. Tanya -----Original Message----- From: owner-lir-wg at ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg at ripe.net]On Behalf Of David R Huberman Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 2:05 PM To: Hans Petter Holen Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: Criteria for initial PA Allocation I need to put my own thoughts forward, too :> > (1) Do you agree or disagree that allocating /20s to every requestor who > can justify an initial assignment is irresponsible? Yes. It's enormously wasteful of a scarce resource and is one factor among many encouraging the RIPE NCC wait queue to be unacceptably long. > (2) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should consider establishing a > policy by which an organization can only request a PA allocation if it can > demonstrate the efficient utilization of an existing block of IP address > space (as yet undefined - /22, /21, /20, etc.)? YES! The RIPE community is sufficiently advanced that imposing a minimum existence on requestors should not be a burden to significant regional economic development. I believe the minimum utilization size should be a /21, not a /22 as intimated by one member of the NCC staff. Organizations requesting a /20 from RIPE should be held to the *same guidelines* as everyone else as outlined in RFC 2050 - slow-start. If REQUESTOR A is efficiently utilizing a /21, they are certainly entitled, in the slow-start model, to request a /20 for their upcoming growth. But if REQUESTOR B is utilizing a /22, they are only entitled to a /21, not a /20. A /22 is too insignificantly sized to gauge the justification for a full /20. A /21 is one exponential factor greater - a statistically relevant distinction. > (3) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should implement a PI assignment > policy establishing an assignment model consistent with the principles > established for such assignments in RFC 2050 (25% utilization immediately, > 50% utilization within one year)? Since I'm the one who is proposing it, ayep. It has been said here by many people that PI assignments should only be for exactly what an organization needs. I contend that an organization should be given some flexibility in regards to future growth. > (4) Should organizations which are using a relatively small amount of > address space be required to renumber in order to recieve a PA allocation > from RIPE? No. I think this is a fundamental flaw in the ARIN community's interpretations of RFC 2050 - it too heavily relies on the conservation principle and too easily discounts operational effects of such a policy. If ISP A is using a /21 from an upstream, and is able to justify a /20 from RIPE, the ISP should be entrusted to do what it wishes with the original /21 - return it, renumber it, keep it. The conservation principle is insignificantly served by forcing renumbering of /22s or /21s, in my opinion. Also, the administrative overhead of *enforcing* such a policy outweighs the benefit of the policy, in my opinion. It will encourage the wait queue to lengthen, not contract. /david From huberman at gblx.net Wed May 23 23:45:19 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:45:19 -0700 (MST) Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: <20010523224439.S17832@Space.Net> Message-ID: > As the original intention was to hand out such space to *registries*, > who would then go on to hand out this space to their customers, and > eventually come back to get *more* address space, your paragraph simply > isn't true (and calling RIPE "irresponsible" is hardly fair). Point taken. My wording was from a modern implementation of the policy perspective. > > (1) Do you agree or disagree that allocating /20s to every requestor who > > can justify an initial assignment is irresponsible? > > I disagree. The RIRs have to balance conservation and aggregation. > > /20 is a good compromise. Some addresses might be wasted, but so what. > > Routing stability and routing table size is a bigger problem than address > wastage, and lowering initial assignments will lead to more fragmentation > and thus to larger routing tables. Please don't put me in the same bucket as those talking about *lowering* the minimum allocation size. This question was simply a preface to (2) below - requiring a indefinite amount of existing address space utilization before qualifying for a RIPE block. Please - the point I was trying to make was the someone who needs a /29 should not be getting a /20 and becoming an LIR simply because they can afford the 2000 Euros. > > (2) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should consider establishing a > > policy by which an organization can only request a PA allocation if it can > > demonstrate the efficient utilization of an existing block of IP address > > space (as yet undefined - /22, /21, /20, etc.)? > > Yes. Because this keeps the number of entries in the global table to > those that have a sufficient large number of "host-things", and there > are fewer of those. Gert, how much address space should an organization have to demonstrate efficient utilization of before being able to qualify for a PA /20 in your opinion? > > (4) Should organizations which are using a relatively small amount of > > address space be required to renumber in order to recieve a PA allocation > > from RIPE? > > Yes. If they have a larger space, they should move their stuff into > the new /20 (or whatever), and stop announcing the old network. You're making the assumption they're announcing the route(s) separately from their upstream's aggregate. I don't want to make such assumptions. If the group feels that we should make distinctions between multi-homed requestors and single-homed requestors, that's a discussion we need to have. I feel that in the case of an organization assigned upstream space from one provider, renumbering shouldn't be forced on them. (a) it doesnt help the routing tables in this case; (b) it's a huge burden on the NCC wait queue, in my estimation. (NCC? Comments?) /david From gert at space.net Wed May 23 22:44:39 2001 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 22:44:39 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: ; from huberman@gblx.net on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 10:52:24AM -0700 References: <00bb01c0e2d5$23005670$ed05e1c3@hph> Message-ID: <20010523224439.S17832@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 10:52:24AM -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > RIPE's long-standing tradition of handing out /19s and /20s to all > requestors, *regardless of actual need*, clearly irresponsibly violates > the essential tenants of RFC 2050 - a document which is supposed to be the > foundation of an RIR's address assignment policies. As the original intention was to hand out such space to *registries*, who would then go on to hand out this space to their customers, and eventually come back to get *more* address space, your paragraph simply isn't true (and calling RIPE "irresponsible" is hardly fair). The fact that an increasing number of applicants do not come back to ask for more space has lead to the change from an initial /19 to /20 last year - which was NOT something that the community took lightly, there was quite some discussion. > (1) Do you agree or disagree that allocating /20s to every requestor who > can justify an initial assignment is irresponsible? I disagree. The RIRs have to balance conservation and aggregation. /20 is a good compromise. Some addresses might be wasted, but so what. Routing stability and routing table size is a bigger problem than address wastage, and lowering initial assignments will lead to more fragmentation and thus to larger routing tables. > (2) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should consider establishing a > policy by which an organization can only request a PA allocation if it can > demonstrate the efficient utilization of an existing block of IP address > space (as yet undefined - /22, /21, /20, etc.)? Yes. Because this keeps the number of entries in the global table to those that have a sufficient large number of "host-things", and there are fewer of those. > (3) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should implement a PI assignment > policy establishing an assignment model consistent with the principles > established for such assignments in RFC 2050 (25% utilization immediately, > 50% utilization within one year)? > > [BTW, the NCC hasn't proposed (3). I'm just throwing it out there.] This is done anyway, as far as I remember - whatever RIPE-141 (++) you send in, it has to show 25/50% utilization (it does not have to be "one year", but "the period that you can plan for"). > (4) Should organizations which are using a relatively small amount of > address space be required to renumber in order to recieve a PA allocation > from RIPE? Yes. If they have a larger space, they should move their stuff into the new /20 (or whatever), and stop announcing the old network. In the typical case (the /20 might not be filled ever, and the original space might fit in there just fine) this is good for aggregation *and* conservation. It's just inconvenient, but so is filling in RIPE-141's instead of giving everybody a Class B. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From gert at space.net Wed May 23 23:52:48 2001 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 23:52:48 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: ; from huberman@gblx.net on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 02:45:19PM -0700 References: <20010523224439.S17832@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20010523235248.X17832@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 02:45:19PM -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > > > (1) Do you agree or disagree that allocating /20s to every requestor who > > > can justify an initial assignment is irresponsible? > > > > I disagree. The RIRs have to balance conservation and aggregation. [..] > Please don't put me in the same bucket as those talking about *lowering* > the minimum allocation size. Sounds I misunderstood your point (it following the "irresponsibility" claim it could be read as "initial size should be a /26" :-) ). [..] > > > (2) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should consider establishing a > > > policy by which an organization can only request a PA allocation if it can > > > demonstrate the efficient utilization of an existing block of IP address > > > space (as yet undefined - /22, /21, /20, etc.)? > > > > Yes. Because this keeps the number of entries in the global table to > > those that have a sufficient large number of "host-things", and there > > are fewer of those. > > Gert, how much address space should an organization have to demonstrate > efficient utilization of before being able to qualify for a PA /20 in your > opinion? I'm not sure. I feel that a /22 is a good value - it means "25% of the /20", and is large enough (4 "class C") that people need to get a feel for network planning, subnet structure and whatnot. But I don't have any hard feelings on this, maybe a /21 is better ("raise the hurdle") or a /23 ("we should not be overly restrictive"). > > > (4) Should organizations which are using a relatively small amount of > > > address space be required to renumber in order to recieve a PA allocation > > > from RIPE? > > > > Yes. If they have a larger space, they should move their stuff into > > the new /20 (or whatever), and stop announcing the old network. > > You're making the assumption they're announcing the route(s) separately > from their upstream's aggregate. Hmmm, yes. But otherwise, what good would it be to get their own address space if they are not going to multi-home it -- and on the other hand, *if* they are going to multi-home, what good would it do them to hold address space that they can only use single-homed? > I don't want to make such assumptions. > > If the group feels that we should make distinctions between multi-homed > requestors and single-homed requestors, that's a discussion we need to > have. Maybe, yes. But then, I haven't yet met anyone that went LIR in the last years that did *not* do it to get "address space they could announce to whoever they like", which usually also meant "going multi-homed sooner or later". But this is only Germany :-) > I feel that in the case of an organization assigned upstream space from > one provider, renumbering shouldn't be forced on them. (a) it doesnt help > the routing tables in this case; (b) it's a huge burden on the NCC wait > queue, in my estimation. (NCC? Comments?) I don't think it will hit the wait queue, but it *will* increase the effort required at audit time. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From jacek_blocki at hp.com Thu May 24 12:27:42 2001 From: jacek_blocki at hp.com (BLOCKI,JACEK (HP-Poland,ex1)) Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 12:27:42 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation Message-ID: <952C79D45561D4119FCE00D0B708C8E001E82A59@lem.poland.hp.com> (1) Do you agree or disagree that allocating /20s to every requestor who can justify an initial assignment is irresponsible? Allocating /20 is reasonable due to routing limitations There are two end of knot called Internet: End Users and Service Providers (e.g. Portals). I do insist on recognizing needs of LIRs servicing Service Providers only. Such an organization has to do multi homing and by nature will use only a fraction of assigned allocation since system servicing end users needs limited number od IPs if properly configured. As it was discussed before we should keep in mind routing tables growth while handling out IP blocks. We can argue if initial allocation of /21 is better than /20, but thinking about much smaller allocations is not practical. (2) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should consider establishing a policy by which an organization can only request a PA allocation if it can demonstrate the efficient utilization of an existing block of IP address space (as yet undefined - /22, /21, /20, etc.)? See comment above. As long as I can have routable block I am fine. (3) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should implement a PI assignment policy establishing an assignment model consistent with the principles established for such assignments in RFC 2050 (25% utilization immediately, 50% utilization within one year)? PI should be avoided, there should be two options: 1) Connect to existing provider and use his service 2) Establish your own connectivity / routing policy So you either need a chunk of PA space or own PA block. Yes I do think a need for own connectivity has to be well justified (4) Should organizations which are using a relatively small amount of address space be required to renumber in order to recieve a PA allocation from RIPE? Once we decide to abandon PI renumbering seems practical From dp at planning.viaginterkom.de Fri May 25 14:05:52 2001 From: dp at planning.viaginterkom.de (Dave Pratt) Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 14:05:52 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hiya all, On Wed, 23 May 2001, David R Huberman wrote: ->If the group feels that we should make distinctions between multi-homed ->requestors and single-homed requestors, that's a discussion we need to ->have. I do not understand where this perspective comes from. Singlehomed users should use PA address space. But see below... As Gert has said, and probably RIPE can confirm, we think nearly all requests are with the intention of multihoming. However, there are also "zero-homed" requesters: folks who require addresses that need to be globally unique but that will never appear in the global routing table. An example would be a management network for VPN services (the VPN users have the right to use all private IP addresses). Extranets might be another example. Whatever conclusions we arrive at, we should not prevent small appropriately sized PI assignments to these folks (I would probably support the withdrawing of future PI assignments to folks who intend to multihome - and replace them with a uniform PA Allocation policy). Cheers Dave From gert at space.net Fri May 25 15:08:23 2001 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 15:08:23 +0200 Subject: Criteria for initial PA Allocation In-Reply-To: ; from dp@planning.viaginterkom.de on Fri, May 25, 2001 at 02:05:52PM +0200 References: Message-ID: <20010525150823.O17832@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 02:05:52PM +0200, Dave Pratt wrote: > Whatever conclusions we arrive at, we should not prevent small appropriately > sized PI assignments to these folks (I would probably support the withdrawing > of future PI assignments to folks who intend to multihome - and replace them > with a uniform PA Allocation policy). I agree, but that's even more tricky to specify as a policy... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From ncc at ripe.net Mon May 28 11:29:55 2001 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Staff) Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 11:29:55 +0200 Subject: Changes to ARIN inaddr.arpa zone generation process Message-ID: <200105280929.LAA27574@office.ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate messages] CHANGES TO ARIN IN-ADDR.ARPA ZONE GENERATION PROCESS Please not the information in the message below from Ginny Listman, Director of Engineering at ARIN, the American Registry for Internet Numbers. The message relates to changes in the generation of the in-addr.arpa zone files by ARIN. This information is specifically pertinent to organisations with networks currently reverse-delegated by ARIN. Please note that this does not directly affect organisations with networks reverse-delegated by the RIPE NCC. Kind regards, RIPE NCC +------------------------------------------------+ | RIPE NCC (Network Co-ordination Centre) | | | | | | http://www.ripe.net | | Singel 258, 1016 AB Amsterdam, The Netherlands | | Tel: +31-20-5354444 | | Fax: +31-20-5354445 | +------------------------------------------------+ -----Begin Forwarded Message ----- From: On Behalf Of ARIN IN-ADDR Role Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 4:18 PM To: arin-announce at arin.net Cc: nanog at nanog.org Subject: in-addr.arpa zone generation process to change When ARIN began operations, one of the tasks that it took over from the InterNIC was the generation of the zone file for the in-addr.arpa domain. In order to correct long-standing issues with the data in the zone file, new software is being deployed. ARIN policy states that allocation subscribers with networks of /16 or shorter prefix are responsible for maintaining all in-addr.arpa domain records for reassignments within the block. They must also provide to ARIN the host names of the nameservers hosting any delegations. ARIN will continue to host domain records for delegations of networks with prefixes longer than /16. The in-addr.arpa zone will contain delegations for any /8 containing nameservers within ARIN's database. For address space not covered via these delegations, the in-addr.arpa domain will contain delegations for /16's with nameservers. For address space still not delegated and as mentioned above, the in-addr.arpa domain will contain delegations of /24's for networks longer than a /16 containing in-addr nameservers. In all cases, the most specific reassignment with nameservers at each octet boundary will prevail. ARIN is making every effort to ensure that any impact from these changes will not disrupt in-addr.arpa name services. If you have concerns whether in-addr.arpa name services will be impacted for your networks, please review examples of the changes to occur at: http://www.arin.net/inaddr/inaddr-examples.txt If you still have concerns after reviewing these examples, please direct specific questions about your networks to inaddr at arin.net. We have tentatively scheduled implementation of the new process for late May or early June. A specific date will be announced several days prior to the cut-over on both the arin-announce and nanog mailing lists. Regards, Ginny Listman Director of Engineering ARIN -----End Forwarded Message ----- From hph at online.no Wed May 30 10:28:49 2001 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:28:49 +0200 Subject: Fw: NAIS Interim Report Message-ID: <007701c0e8e2$8d08a1e0$0200000a@hph> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Courtney" To: ; ; Cc: Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 4:31 AM Subject: NAIS Interim Report | Dear S.O. Secretariats: | | The NGO and Academic ICANN Study has recently released the Executive | Summary of its Interim Report. Could you please help distribute this | notice to your Supporting Organizations? | | Thank you, | | Rob Courtney | NGO and Academic ICANN Study | | * * * | | Greetings, | | 1. In preparation for the upcoming ICANN meeting in Stockholm, the | NGO and Academic ICANN Study is releasing its Interim Report on last | year's At Large election and on the future of the public role in | ICANN. | | The Executive Summary of that report is available online at | http://www.naisproject.org/ or, for those without Web access, by | e-mail to info at naisproject.org. The full Interim Report will be | available online shortly. Translations of the Executive Summary in | Spanish, French and Chinese will be available later this week. | | The Interim Report is preliminary in nature. NAIS will publish its | Final Report, with recommendations, in September. We welcome | comments, and look forward to continued discussion on this topic. | | 2. NAIS also invites members of the ICANN community to a lunchtime | briefing on the report this Saturday, June 2, at the Stockholm | meeting. NAIS members will provide an overview of the Interim Report | and host an open discussion of its contents. Please feel free to | bring a bag lunch and join the conversation. | | DATE: Saturday, June 2nd, 12:00-13:15 | TIME: 12:00 - 13:15 | PLACE: First Hotel Royal Star, Skytten room (near the Stockholm | International Fairs building, site of the meetings) | | We look forward to your comments and suggestions! | | The NAIS Project | | * * * | | The NGO and Academic ICANN Study (NAIS) is a collaboration of experts | from around the world, formed to explore public participation in | ICANN and the selection of At-Large Directors on ICANN's governing | board. NAIS mirrors ICANN's own study effort, and was created to | provide an independent examination, global in scope and grounded in a | belief in the importance of public representation. | | For more information, please visit http://www.naisproject.org/ or | contact info at naisproject.org. | | -- | | Rob Courtney | Policy Analyst | Center for Democracy & Technology | 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100 | Washington, DC 20006 | 202 637 9800 | fax 202 637 0968 | rob at cdt.org | pgp id: 0xAD7123FB | http://www.cdt.org/ | | From engin at ripe.net Wed May 30 10:56:52 2001 From: engin at ripe.net (Engin Gunduz) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:56:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: RPSL - what is going on? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, On Wed, 23 May 2001, Engin Gunduz wrote: [...] > > > > > > There is no page of bugs found and what is still a bug and what has been > > fixed (ala Cisco Release Notes). For example, I lost 5 days when I > > couldn't create a nic-hdl. Turns out I was sending it in as "nic-hdl: > > auto-1" and there is a bug where lower case "auto-1" doesn't work and one > > has to use all uppercase. > > > Such a bugs page will be prepared shortly in our external web site. > As a followup: We have prepared a list of known bugs for v3 software, which is at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/db/issues.html Best regards, Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group [...] From marck at rinet.ru Wed May 30 17:13:03 2001 From: marck at rinet.ru (Dmitry Morozovsky) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 19:13:03 +0400 (MSD) Subject: DB V3 feature request In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 30 May 2001, Engin Gunduz wrote: EG> As a followup: We have prepared a list of known bugs for v3 software, EG> which is at: EG> EG> http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/db/issues.html Great, thank you. Small question: is there a plan to implement support for a.b.c.d/len inetnums? surely we can write small wrapper, but... Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, DM268-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck at rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From ncc at ripe.net Thu May 31 11:14:11 2001 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Staff) Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:14:11 +0200 Subject: fwd: New in-addr.arpa release Message-ID: <200105310914.LAA07221@office.ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate messages] Dear all, Please note the message below, posted by Ginny Listman, Director of Engineering at ARIN. A message has previously been forwarded to these mailing lists with further information. (Please refer to: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/routing-wg/current/msg00040.html) For direct questions regarding these changes, please contact . Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno +------------------------------------+ | Nurani Nimpuno | | Registration Services Manager | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | | http://www.ripe.net | +------------------------------------+ ------- Forwarded Message Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 12:25:12 -0400 (EDT) From: ARIN IN-ADDR Role Sender: owner-arin-announce at arin.net To: arin-announce at arin.net Subject: New in-addr.arpa release On May 17, ARIN announced that it would be making changes to the way it produces the in-addr.arpa zone file. Comments on these changes have been minimual. Most were questions addressing specific networks, or were statements of approval. Therefore, ARIN will proceed with implementation on June 1. If you are concerned about possible impact on your networks, please review examples of the changes to occur at: http://www.arin.net/inaddr/ If you still have concerns after reviewing these examples, please direct specific questions about your networks to inaddr at arin.net. Regards, Ginny Listman Director of Engineering ARIN ------- End of Forwarded Message From engin at ripe.net Thu May 31 11:28:55 2001 From: engin at ripe.net (Engin Gunduz) Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:28:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: DB V3 feature request In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Dmitry, On Wed, 30 May 2001, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: > On Wed, 30 May 2001, Engin Gunduz wrote: > > EG> As a followup: We have prepared a list of known bugs for v3 software, > EG> which is at: > EG> > EG> http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/db/issues.html > > Great, thank you. > > Small question: is there a plan to implement support for a.b.c.d/len > inetnums? surely we can write small wrapper, but... This would require some biggish changes in the structure, so not possible to implement right away. However we'll put this in our wish list. Regards, Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group > > Sincerely, > D.Marck [DM5020, DM268-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck at rinet.ru *** > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >