June 2006 - address-policy-wg

RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
by Koepp, Karsten 27 Jun '06

27 Jun '06

Hi, I support the proposal to take away the 200 customers' number being further in favour of deleting "and c) have a plan for making a reasonable number of /48 assignments within two years" Address assignment is the entire purpose of becoming a LIR. RIPE has 3800 members, this sums up to less than 20k LIRs globally, all being assigned ONE /32. I am curious to see whether chairs can see consensus after reading the whole thread. Can people please stick to the point when feedback on a certain proposal is asked. I guess this was a major objective when introducing the PDP. regards Karsten > -----Original Message----- > From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es] > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 2:20 PM > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy > Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy) > > > Hi, > > I will like to know if anyone has any comments/inputs on this > proposal. > > I tried to follow the suggestions received after the > presentation of the > IPv6 PI policy at the last meeting. > > Thanks ! > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > > > De: Filiz Yilmaz <filiz(a)ripe.net> > > Responder a: <filiz(a)ripe.net> > > Fecha: Wed, 31 May 2006 14:43:05 +0200 > > Para: <policy-announce(a)ripe.net> > > CC: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es>, Hans > Petter Holen > > <hph(a)oslo.net>, "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > > Asunto: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 > Address Allocation > > and Assignment Policy) > > > > PDP Number: 2006-02 > > IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy > > > > Dear Colleagues > > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-267 is now available for > > discussion. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html > > > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 June 2006. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Filiz Yilmaz > > RIPE NCC > > Policy Development Officer > > > > > > > ********************************************** > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! > http://www.ipv6day.org > > This electronic message contains information which may be > privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be > for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not > the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, > distribution or use of the contents of this information, > including attached files, is prohibited. > > >

1 0

2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
by Filiz Yilmaz 20 Jun '06

20 Jun '06

PDP Number: 2006-02 IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy Dear Colleagues A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-267 is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 June 2006. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

18 35

Re: Possible IAB workshop on routing and addressing participants?
by David Meyer 19 Jun '06

19 Jun '06

[Sorry about the wide distribution/duplicates. Just trying to reach as many of the folks who may be interested as possible --dmm] Folks, The IAB is considering holding a routing and addressing workshop, perhaps in the fall 2006 time frame (see the draft invite below). We're in the process of collecting potential participants, so please pass along any the names of folks that that you think would be productive participants. Thanks, --dmm (for the IAB) ---- Greetings, The IAB is sponsoring a workshop on "Scalable Routing and Addressing Architectures for the Internet" in order to foster interchange between the operator, standards, vendor, and research communities on this important topic. You are being invited to participate in this effort. This workshop effort will consist of mailing list discussions in advance of, and after a face to face meeting. The technical goals of this effort are outlined below. We believe these are the critical elements to fostering a constructive discussion of important routing and addressing technical work going forward and are soliciting workshop participation to work towards those goals. Should you decide to join us in this workshop, you will be expected to attend the face to face meeting [0], contribute to (and possibly present at) that meeting, as well as follow and participate in the mailing list discussions. The most important objective of the workshop is to foster and encourage innovative thinking in an area where there has been little fundamental change for the last twelve years. As such, the primary goals of the workshop include the following two items: (i). Produce a concise problem statement that will serve as the input to future work on this topic. This problem statement will include, among other things, a list of the problems with the current routing and addressing architecture. These include (but are not limited to): - The difficulty in changing provider due to PA/CIDR addressing schemes - The lack of effective multi-homing support - Limited capability to protect against either the spoofing of individual host IP addresses or entire IP address blocks - The limited ability to secure the routing system itself, and (ii). Produce a prioritized list of requirements, all of which must be met by a next generation routing and addressing architecture. A sample list might include (in no particular order): - Retaining the connectionless datagram model of IP routing - Allow users (small and large) to freely switch between providers without substantial service interruption - Include survival of higher-layer connections and associations when connectivity to individual providers changes - Allow both users and ISPs to influence path selection according to traffic management and classification requirements - Provide better support for mobility and nomadicity - Provide architected instrumentation facilities - Allow at least one-to-many multicast - Prevent source address spoofing - Provide a rational economic basis for deployment - Secure the routing infrastructure, including the authentication of updates and the unauthorized injection of information into the routing system - Define scalability requirements for a next generation routing system - Have architected transition mechanisms and be incrementally deployable (where possible) During the workshop, scribes will be assigned to summarize the discussion. Post-workshop, scribes will be expected to participate in finalizing the workshop report. All participants will be expected to review the draft workshop report before publication. The workshop is <date, <logistics. Please reply within the next week indicating your willingness to participate in this workshop. Please indicate whether (and to what extent) you'd be able to participate (we'd like an explicit 'no' if you will not be able to), and what you feel is your area of expertise. If you can not participate, please suggest potential alternatives or substitutes. [0] Attendees will also need to arrange and pay for their own travel and accommodations.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Comments on 2006-01 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
by Tim Streater 16 Jun '06

16 Jun '06

At 15:14 15/06/2006, Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com wrote: >The current swamp is a block in which the allocations >are not structured according to network topology. All >IPv6 blocks are structured, at the highest level, according >to continental-scale areas. At a more detailed level, >PI blocks smaller than a /32, could be allocated >according to some kind of topological addressing plan. >For instance, RIPE could have a Scandinavia aggregate, >CIS aggregate, Central aggregate (FR, DE, BE, CH, NL, PL, AT), >Western aggregate (UK, IE, ES, PT) and Southeast aggregate >(Ex-Yugoslavia, GR, TR, IL). We have one router in almost every country you listed and some you haven't, all within Europe. Do we get 5 /32 then? In addition, one of the networks we manage which also covers a large area is planned to be handed off to its own managing entity, complete with the infrastructure. So we'd like PI v6 space please to address it. And for it and our primary network we plan to allocate 0 addresses to 0 customers for the next 2, 10, 20, infinity years. -- Tim

2 1

2005-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Filiz Yilmaz 09 Jun '06

09 Jun '06

PDP Number: 2005-03 IPv6 Initial Allocation Dear Colleagues The proposal 2005-03, IPv6 Initial Allocation, has been withdrawn by the proposer who thought this proposal is superceded by poposal 2006-02, IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy. The proposal is archived now and you can find it at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-3.html Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

2 1