March 2005 - address-policy-wg

Registration Policy
by Thomas Thorne 11 Mar '05

11 Mar '05

To Whom It May Concern: How does a company or individual "own" the .biz, .info or similar URL suffix? Is it possible to register a new one? If so, at what cost? And do you allow someone to then own and profit from it? Thank you, Tom Thorne __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

3 2

Status of open actions
by Hans Petter Holen 04 Mar '05

04 Mar '05

Dear all, the next RIPE meeting is approaching in a couple months - It is time to review the action list. I have added the status as far as I know. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/action-list.html 47.3 Andreas Bäß Anycast for ccTLD: Complete discussion through Mailing List to draft formal proposal. Ongoing - published as policy proposal #alpha 47.4 Chair AfriNIC proposal for /22 minimum allocation size: Seek final consensus through the Mailing List. completed 47.5 Chair Changing the 80% rule for IPv4 allocations: Start discussion through the Mailing List. 48.1 Chair HD Ratio for IPv4: Take discussion to the mailing list policy proposal #beta 48.2 Chair Issues seen in IPv6 Allocation requests: circulate input on the mailing list. 48.3 NCC Issues seen in IPv6 Allocation requests: Propose re-write following mailing list discussion. 49.1 Andy Furnel Draft formal proposal on removing the 200 customer requirements for IPv6 49.2 Rob Blokzijl Publish draft Policy Development process published http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ripe-list/2004/msg00058.html 22 Dec 2004 49.3 Working Group Continue discussion on the list of the IANA-RIR IPv6 policy 49.4 Eva Ericsson-Rabete Take discussion on Whois to the list 49.5 Alain Bidron Make a formal proposal on use of HD ratio for IPv4 policy proposal #beta

1 0

Beta test of new PDP
by Hans Petter Holen 04 Mar '05

04 Mar '05

As the new policy process proposed by Rob http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ripe-list/2004/msg00058.html has not been finalized yet I have deceided to "beta test" the new process on new proposals received after today. The new process is a bit more structured that the previous one, and the previous one is open enough in its definition to fit the new one in this framework. Until the new process is approved and fully implmenented I'll maintain the list of proposals myself. Please let me know if you have any concerns with this approach Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen Address POlicy WG Chair

1 0

New AS Number Block allocated to the RIPE NCC
by Filiz Yilmaz 03 Mar '05

03 Mar '05

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the AS Number Block 34816 - 35839 from the IANA in February 2005. You may want to update your records accordingly. Kind regards, -- Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
by Tim Streater 02 Mar '05

02 Mar '05

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:00:05 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: >If you say they are lying, then complain to RIPE NCC that they are doing >their jobs wrongly. Apparently everybody who has gotten an allocation up >to now have been able to reason that they need the allocation under the >current policies. If you are not able to do so, though luck, you most >likely don't need it in the first place then. Sure they lie. I went on a BGP course a couple of years ago, and the instructor said that in his experience most people did because that's the only way to get what you need from RIPE. Current policies certainly don't fit us, for example. Looking in ripe-267, I see that in 5.1.1 there are four criteria for getting v6 space: 1) be an LIR - OK fine, we're an LIR. 2) not be an End Site - OK we're not. 3) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations - yes, we will certainly do that - to which it will assign /48s etc etc - no, we will never do that as all our customers are LIRs. 4) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations etc etc - no, we will never assign such space as all our customers have their own already. We manage one network (GEANT) for which we have a /32. There is another network (EUMEDCONNECT) which we manage at present, but in two years we are expecting that the connected NRENs will set up their own managing entity, and the infrastructure (including address space) will be handed over to them. I managed to get PI v4 space last year for this but it seems there is no such thing as PI v6 space so unless I fib and say that we have connected 50k end users to GEANT, I don't see how I can obtain separate, routeable v6 space for EUMEDCONNECT. We're an LIR, and an ISP, but we don't fit into the nice hierarchical tree that everyone assumes exists. For v4 we have an essentially similar problem. When GEANT's predecessor network, TEN-155, was being replaced we had to argue with RIPE about getting another /21 for GEANT. Well, now we have handed back the old /21 that we used for TEN-155. But the process should be easier than that. In short, I would advocate relaxing the rules about PI space. -- Tim

10 15

Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 02 Mar '05

02 Mar '05

On 2-aug-04, at 19:42, Andrei Robachevsky wrote: > K-root server has now IPv6 transport enabled. > k.root-servers.net. AAAA 2001:7fd::1 > A 193.0.14.129 > This information is also available from www.root-servers.org webiste. Since the ARIN micro allocation policy creates some problems, I was curious what kind of address space RIPE uses for k-root. A /32 "macro allocation", it turns out: inet6num: 2001:07FD::/32 netname: K-rootserver-net-20030829 descr: This assignment given to k-root.server.net I believe this ASSIGNment is in violation of existing IPv6 ALLOCATION policies. I would be very interested in learning any information to the contrary. Iljitsch van Beijnum

14 70