From xavier at ripe.net Thu Jan 21 12:14:26 2010 From: xavier at ripe.net (Xavier Le Bris) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:14:26 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2009-03 "Run-out fairly" implemented Message-ID: <4B583712.4020109@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate e-mails.] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that the policy described in proposal 2009-03,"Run Out Fairly", has been implemented. Requests for IPv4 address space received on or after Friday, 22 January will be evaluated by the RIPE NCC Registration Services Department under the new policy. Full text of the policy proposal can be found at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03.html The following RIPE documents have been updated to reflect this policy implementation: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-488.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-489.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-490.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-491.html Regards, Xavier Le Bris Registration Services From sjoerdoo at ripe.net Fri Jan 22 17:50:58 2010 From: sjoerdoo at ripe.net (Sjoerd Oostdijck) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:50:58 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Reverse DNS Outage Announcement Message-ID: <4B59D772.4060002@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, At 13:50 on Thursday, 21 January, an error was introduced into the RIPE NCC's reverse DNS provisioning system. This caused reverse DNS delegations to stop working for allocations in the following range: 77.0.0.0 to 77.220.7.255 This error was triggered by an internal cleanup of our Early Registration Transfer (ERX) DNS delegations, which was being conducted as part of the RIPE NCC's Registration Data Quality (RDQ) project. The reverse DNS provisioning system was corrected again on 22 January at 09:50 (UTC). However, due to negative caching in DNS resolvers, the problem may have remained visible for a further two hours. The RIPE NCC is currently revising the reverse DNS provisioning system to prevent errors such as this occurring in future. If you have any questions or comments, please send an email to . Regards, Sjoerd Oostdijck DNS Services Group, RIPE NCC From shane at time-travellers.org Thu Jan 28 18:29:45 2010 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:29:45 -0800 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 32-bit AS Number status? Message-ID: <4B61C989.8010604@time-travellers.org> All, I noticed that the proposed updated AS Number policy was sent to the address-policy-wg recently. There is a timeline for 32-bit AS Number in both the old and new versions, which says: "From 1 January 2010 the RIPE NCC will cease to make any distinction between 16-bit AS Numbers and 32-bit only AS Numbers, and will operate AS Number assignments from an undifferentiated 32-bit AS Number allocation pool." I'm not sure exactly what this means, but I think it is supposed to mean that people get 32-bit AS Numbers now. Did this happen? If it didn't, why not? Do we need to change "2010" to "2011"? Is it ever going to happen? If it did, was there any effect? I mean both from humans (angry LIRs, peasants marching on the castle with torches, riots in the streets), or on the Intertubes (ugly routing artifacts, mass reboots of boxes with old firmware, monitoring systems gone wild)? Just wondering. :) -- Shane From rhe at nosc.ja.net Thu Jan 28 18:56:17 2010 From: rhe at nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:56:17 +0000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 32-bit AS Number status? In-Reply-To: <4B61C989.8010604@time-travellers.org> References: <4B61C989.8010604@time-travellers.org> Message-ID: <4B61CFC1.2080905@nosc.ja.net> Shane, > I noticed that the proposed updated AS Number policy was sent to the > address-policy-wg recently. Note that this change is only supposed to clean up language, not change the meaning of any part of the policy. > I'm not sure exactly what this means, but I think it is supposed to mean > that people get 32-bit AS Numbers now. Did this happen? As I understood the policy, it means we think of the ASN space as a single pool of 32 bit numbers, but continue to assign numbers under 65000 (at the discretion of the RIRs?) until we run out. The original policy proposal meant all assignments would be >=65536 as of the start of this year, but that changed to this modified sense during the policy's discussion. Others may understand it differently to I. :) Cheers, Rob -- Rob Evans JANET(UK) Development Team Twitter: https://twitter.com/JANETDev/team Work tweets: https://twitter.com/internetplumber JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG From filiz at ripe.net Fri Jan 29 10:44:07 2010 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:44:07 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 32-bit AS Number status? In-Reply-To: <4B61C989.8010604@time-travellers.org> References: <4B61C989.8010604@time-travellers.org> Message-ID: <0E878365-0E54-4F6B-9038-14ABDDC25EEC@ripe.net> Dear Shane, During RIPE 58, Daniel Karrenberg has made a presentation, titled "32- bit ASN Take-Up Report, Policy Adjustments Needed?". You can find the presentation at the archives at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/content/presentations/asn32-take-up-report.pdf Slide 5 of the presentation relates to your question. The RIPE NCC proposed that the method of assigning ASNs that was employed in 2009 should continue after 1 January 2010. This means that all assignments will be for 32-bit only ASNs by default, unless a 16-bit ASN is specifically requested. The AP WG agreed with this proposal. You can find the records of this at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/meeting-report.php and http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r58-minutes.html I hope this helps. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC On 28 Jan 2010, at 18:29, Shane Kerr wrote: > All, > > I noticed that the proposed updated AS Number policy was sent to the > address-policy-wg recently. > > There is a timeline for 32-bit AS Number in both the old and new > versions, which says: > > "From 1 January 2010 the RIPE NCC will cease to make any distinction > between 16-bit AS Numbers and 32-bit only AS Numbers, and will operate > AS Number assignments from an undifferentiated 32-bit AS Number > allocation pool." > > I'm not sure exactly what this means, but I think it is supposed to > mean > that people get 32-bit AS Numbers now. Did this happen? > > If it didn't, why not? Do we need to change "2010" to "2011"? Is it > ever > going to happen? > > If it did, was there any effect? I mean both from humans (angry LIRs, > peasants marching on the castle with torches, riots in the streets), > or > on the Intertubes (ugly routing artifacts, mass reboots of boxes with > old firmware, monitoring systems gone wild)? > > Just wondering. :) > > -- > Shane > From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Sat Jan 30 21:21:54 2010 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:21:54 +0200 (IST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [routing-wg]Re: [address-policy-wg] 32-bit AS Number status? In-Reply-To: <0E878365-0E54-4F6B-9038-14ABDDC25EEC@ripe.net> References: <4B61C989.8010604@time-travellers.org> <0E878365-0E54-4F6B-9038-14ABDDC25EEC@ripe.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > Dear Shane, > > During RIPE 58, Daniel Karrenberg has made a presentation, titled "32-bit ASN > Take-Up Report, Policy Adjustments Needed?". > You can find the presentation at the archives at > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/content/presentations/asn32-take-up-report.pdf > > Slide 5 of the presentation relates to your question. The RIPE NCC proposed > that the method of assigning ASNs that was employed in 2009 should continue > after 1 January 2010. This means that all assignments will be for 32-bit only > ASNs by default, unless a 16-bit ASN is specifically requested. The AP WG > agreed with this proposal. Does the RIPE NCC consider a slide in a presentation as proper documentation for revised ASN assignment procedures? -Hank > > You can find the records of this at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/meeting-report.php > and > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r58-minutes.html > > I hope this helps. > > Kind regards, > > Filiz Yilmaz > Policy Development Manager > RIPE NCC > > > On 28 Jan 2010, at 18:29, Shane Kerr wrote: > >> All, >> >> I noticed that the proposed updated AS Number policy was sent to the >> address-policy-wg recently. >> >> There is a timeline for 32-bit AS Number in both the old and new >> versions, which says: >> >> "From 1 January 2010 the RIPE NCC will cease to make any distinction >> between 16-bit AS Numbers and 32-bit only AS Numbers, and will operate >> AS Number assignments from an undifferentiated 32-bit AS Number >> allocation pool." >> >> I'm not sure exactly what this means, but I think it is supposed to mean >> that people get 32-bit AS Numbers now. Did this happen? >> >> If it didn't, why not? Do we need to change "2010" to "2011"? Is it ever >> going to happen? >> >> If it did, was there any effect? I mean both from humans (angry LIRs, >> peasants marching on the castle with torches, riots in the streets), or >> on the Intertubes (ugly routing artifacts, mass reboots of boxes with >> old firmware, monitoring systems gone wild)? >> >> Just wondering. :) >> >> -- >> Shane >> >