May 2006 - address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
by Pekka Savola 12 May '06

12 May '06

Hi, I don't support PI space to end-sites. We have to get rid of the notion that a random end-site has any business whatsoever in mucking with the global routing tables, either by making it much larger than need be or by polluting it with needless dynamicity. Example of the latter: deploying inbound traffic engineering adjustment solutions which result in thousands of daily flaps in the advertisements, as shown by Huston's analysis. We have way too much trouble with clueless ISPs to also add (or continue to add) end-sites to the mix... .... Now, from practical point of view, it seems there is strong "need" for PI, and it might be a PI policy of some kind might actually get through. If so, the policy should be such that it minimizes the bad effects of PI and encourages people to use other solutions if those are viable for them (unfortunately, the only way to achieve that appears to be $$$$), in particular (in the rough order of importance): 1. Each assignment must be accompanied by a recurring fee (at least 1000-2000 USD/EUR a year, preferably 5000+). This is peanuts (compared to other costs) to anyone who actually needs this multihoming solution. However, this ensures at least some minimum usage barrier ("those who don't really need this can use different multihoming solutions"), and recovery of the resources back to RIR after the company has gone bankrupt or no longer needs the addresses. If you don't know where to put the extra money, donate it to ISOC or something. 2. one-size-fits-all assignments, period. You get a /48 or /32 (I don't have much preference here), but you must not be able to justify for larger space. This is to avoid the organization from getting a larger block and chopping it into smaller pieces and polluting the global routing table with more specifics which would get past prefix length filters. 3. assignments from a separate address block, set aside for PI. To ease strict "assignment-size only" filtering of these blocks. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

38 110

The flexibility of IPv4 routing
by Florian Weimer 11 May '06

11 May '06

According to this article: <http://www.renesys.com/blog/2006/04/tracking_plane_flight_on_inter.shtml> Connexion uses BGP and the Internet routing table to implement IP mobility: | So how did they solve it? They assigned a /24 (256 globally visible IP | addresses) to each plane. They announce that network from the origin | site (in my case, Europe since I took off from Germany). When the | plane is between the two satellites and in view of each, it is | programmed to re-connect to the North American satellite. So traffic | is always getting to the ground the fastest it can, minimizing | latency. Certainly a cool hack, although I'm not sure if the leak of the /24s to the global routing table is intended. It's not necessary to minimize latency. Perhaps Connexion does not operate an intercontinental AS, though -- which would mean that two planes using different head stations could not communicate with each other at the IP layer. Anyway, I wish you guys could bring this kind of flexibility to the IPv6 world. 8-)

2 2

2005-12 New Draft Document Published (4-Byte AS Number Policy)
by Filiz Yilmaz 10 May '06

10 May '06

PDP Number: 2005-12 4-Byte AS Number Policy Dear Colleagues We have published a draft document for the proposal described in 2005-12. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-12.html and the draft document at: http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-12-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 7 June 2006. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

2005-02 New Draft Document Published (IP Assignments for anycasting DNS)
by Filiz Yilmaz 10 May '06

10 May '06

PDP Number: 2005-02 IP Assignments for anycasting DNS Dear Colleagues We have published two draft documents for the proposal described in 2005-02. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-2.html and the draft documents at: http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-02-draft.html http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-02-v6-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 7 June 2006. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

IPv4-HD-Ratio proposal
by Thor-Henrik Kvandahl 03 May '06

03 May '06

Hi all, here are my *personal* opinion on this proposal. I do not support this proposal, and my reasons for this are: * This proposal increases the rate of consumption of IPv4. * It favourises the large ISPs. * In the presentation on RIPE 52, Tuesday by Filiz Yilmaz, we where told that this proposal was abandoned by ARIN and APNIC, and one representative from LacNIC also stood up and expressed their conserns. I have not heard anything from AfriNIC, but I cannot see why they would want to implement this policy. I feel if will be arrogant of the RIPE community to disregard the other RIRs conserns and implement this policy. And I also have to agree with Gert Doering who said in the address policy WG that there has been very quiet around this proposal, and that the reason for this can be that ETNO claims thay "unanimously support this proposal". -- Thor-Henrik Kvandahl no.telenor

7 11

VS: [address-policy-wg] IPv4-HD-Ratio proposal
by Storm, Ørnulf 02 May '06

02 May '06

-----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: Storm, Ørnulf Sendt: 28. april 2006 10:37 Til: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Kopi: 'Thor-Henrik Kvandahl' Emne: SV: [address-policy-wg] IPv4-HD-Ratio proposal I also support Thor-Henrik comments. I think it would be a bad idea to make a policy change now that increases the consumption, especially now when it is going towards the end of the lifetime of the IPv4 address space, relatively speaking reference to the work that Geoff Houston has done on predictions of the lifetime of the IPv4 address space. This proposal could be seen as favouring the large ISPs and is working in disfavour of the small ISPs. The IP address space should be assigned in a fairly manner and it appears that this proposal could change this. All participants should have the same conditions when competing with each other. A small ISP in a small country should have same possibilities to get new IP address space as a large ISP in a large country. Therefore, I think that establishing this policy would be the wrong message for the RIPE community to send in these WSIS days with the "world watching". Regards, Ørnulf Storm Network Addresses and Electronic Signatues Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority E-mail: ors(a)npt.no Telephone: +47 22824600 Web: www.npt.no -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] På vegne av Thor-Henrik Kvandahl Sendt: Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:48 AM Til: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Emne: [address-policy-wg] IPv4-HD-Ratio proposal Hi all, here are my *personal* opinion on this proposal. I do not support this proposal, and my reasons for this are: * This proposal increases the rate of consumption of IPv4. * It favourises the large ISPs. * In the presentation on RIPE 52, Tuesday by Filiz Yilmaz, we where told that this proposal was abandoned by ARIN and APNIC, and one representative from LacNIC also stood up and expressed their conserns. I have not heard anything from AfriNIC, but I cannot see why they would want to implement this policy. I feel if will be arrogant of the RIPE community to disregard the other RIRs conserns and implement this policy. And I also have to agree with Gert Doering who said in the address policy WG that there has been very quiet around this proposal, and that the reason for this can be that ETNO claims thay "unanimously support this proposal". -- Thor-Henrik Kvandahl no.telenor

1 0