September 2006 - address-policy-wg

IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 25 Oct '06

25 Oct '06

Hi all, Same for this one ... Looking for further inputs to this policy proposal. As the discussion period for this proposal (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html) is almost over, I will like to ask for the latest inputs in order to further decide how to proceed. Filiz arranged some stats about the discussion (thanks a lot for that !) last July, and afterwards, even if the discussion period has been extended, I don't recall having seen new comments. The stats don't include my own postings: >>> - there were 39 posts from 14 different individuals about it. >>> >>> - 8 people supported it. >>> >>> - 1 person *seemed* to be in favour of keeping the current policy. >>> >>> - 5 people made comments which I could not identify a clear support or >>> objection. So someone else will like to say anything new or clarify their view in favor or opposition to the proposal ? Regards, Jordi ********************************************** 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.

7 7

2006-07 New Policy Proposal (Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window)
by Filiz Yilmaz 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

PDP Number: 2006-07 Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy has been made and is now available for discussion. This proposal suggests the minimum Assignment Window (AW) available to LIRs should be raised from zero (0) to /21 (2048 IPv4 addresses). Because the sub-allocation policy references the AW policy, the sub-allocation policy also needs to be updated. This proposal suggests that the maximum sub-allocation should be kept at /20 (4096 IPv4 addresses). You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-07.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 10 October 2006. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

5 7

2006-06 New Policy Proposal (IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period)
by Filiz Yilmaz 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

PDP Number: 2006-06 IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This proposal is to have the RIPE NCC allocate address space to Local Internet Registries (LIRs) based on their one-year needs. In other words, it suggests setting a maximum allocation period of 12 months. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-06.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 10 October 2006. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

3 2

Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 28 Sep '06

28 Sep '06

Hi all, Sorry confused stats. Ignore the previous email ... As the discussion period for this proposal (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html) is almost over, I will like to ask for the latest inputs in order to further decide how to proceed. Filiz arranged some stats about the discussion (thanks a lot for that !) last July, and afterwards, even if the discussion period has been extended, I don't recall having seen new comments. The stats don't include my own postings: >>> - there were 9 posts from 8 individuals about it. >>> >>> - 5 people supported it. 1 of these made some comments though, that he >>> prefers a longer prefix than a /32 clearly in his mail. >>> >>> - 1 person stated he supports "PI" but he is not supporting this proposal. >>> >>> - 2 people said "No". So someone else will like to say anything new or clarify their view in favor or opposition to the proposal ? Regards, Jordi ********************************************** 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.

10 18

PI vs PA in routing table
by Max Tulyev 28 Sep '06

28 Sep '06

Hello! Is there a graphs shows how much prefixes in global route table are PA and how much - PI (maybe in percents)? And also this one year-by-year (monthly?)? Maybe there is no real "route table PI pollution" trouble in the real world? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

4 4

2006-04 Draft Document will be produced (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Sep '06

28 Sep '06

PDP Number: 2006-04 Contact e-mail Address Requirements Dear Colleagues, The discussion period for the proposal 2006-04, Contact e-mail Address Requirements has ended. This proposal suggests that working and up-to-date contact e-mail addresses should be maintained at all times for address space that is registered in the RIPE Database. A draft document will now be prepared for review. We will publish the document in about four weeks. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-04.html Regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

9 16

Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-02)
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 27 Sep '06

27 Sep '06

Hi all, As the discussion period for this proposal (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html) is almost over, I will like to ask for the latest inputs in order to further decide how to proceed. Filiz arranged some stats about the discussion (thanks a lot for that !) last July, and afterwards, even if the discussion period has been extended, I don't recall having seen new comments. The stats don't include my own postings: >>> - there were 39 posts from 14 different individuals about it. >>> >>> - 8 people supported it. >>> >>> - 1 person *seemed* to be in favour of keeping the current policy. >>> >>> - 5 people made comments which I could not identify a clear support or >>> objection. So someone else will like to say anything new or clarify their view in favor or opposition to the proposal ? Regards, Jordi ********************************************** 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

2005-02 implementation: IP assignments for anycasting DNS
by leo vegoda 26 Sep '06

26 Sep '06

Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we will be able to accept e-mailed requests for assignments for anycasting DNS servers from 2 October 2006. The request form and supporting notes will be available from the RIPE Document Store at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/internet-registries.html We will make a separate announcement when it is possible to make requests via the LIR Portal. Assignments for anycasting DNS will come from reserved blocks: * IPv4 Anycast Assignments (/24) from 194.0.0.0/18 * IPv6 Anycast Assignments (/48) from 2001:0678::/29 You may want to update your filters. Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
by Filiz Yilmaz 26 Sep '06

26 Sep '06

PDP Number: 2006-05 PI Assignment Size Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy has been proposed and is now available for discussion. This proposal suggests to have the minimum assignment size for PI assignments to be a /24 when routing is a major issue for a multihoming End User. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 26 September 2006. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

26 83

2005-12 Proposal Accepted (4-Byte AS Number Policy)
by Filiz Yilmaz 25 Sep '06

25 Sep '06

PDP Number: 2005-12 4-Byte AS Number Policy Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2005-12 has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-12.html One policy document was affected by this proposal and now is updated and published: Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies and Procedures, ripe-389 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/asn-assignment.html Thank you for your input. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

2005-02 Proposal Accepted (IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS)
by Filiz Yilmaz 25 Sep '06

25 Sep '06

PDP Number: 2005-02 IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2005-02 has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-2.html Two policy documents were affected by this proposal and now are updated and published: IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region, ripe-387 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html and IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy, ripe-388 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html Thank you for your input. We also noticed an error in the previous IPv4 policy document, ripe-368. In 2004, utilisation requirements to receive a first allocation were dropped and the document was updated accordingly. However, a reference to this changed policy was overlooked in this previous update: 5.4 Sub-allocations: ... Downstream network operators efficiently using a /22 sub-allocation qualify to receive a /20 PA allocation from the RIPE NCC if they decide to become an LIR themselves. ... We also removed this out of date reference from the document in ripe-387. We apologise for any confusion. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

RIPE NCC NRO Number Council Candidates Announced
by Paul Rendek 21 Sep '06

21 Sep '06

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, The following candidates have accepted their nomination for the vacant seat on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council (NC) from the RIPE NCC service region: * Sabine Jaume Rajaonia * Dave Wilson The term of Sabine Jaume, who was elected in January 2004, expires in December 2006. The representative appointed by the Internet community for the NRO NC seat will serve a three-year term, beginning 1 January 2007. Candidate profiles and information on how to submit an Expression of Support can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2006/confirmed-nominations.html Voting will take place during the RIPE NCC Services Working Group session of the RIPE 53 Meeting in Amsterdam. This session takes place at 16:00 - 17:00 on Thursday 5 October, 2006. Note: this is a change from the previously published date. The successful candidate will be announced during this meeting. For more information about the NRO NC, nominations and the election process, see: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2006/ Regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services & Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

2006-05 / PI Assignment Size - brief address wastage analysis
by Nick Hilliard 18 Sep '06

18 Sep '06

As of yesterday, there were ~18000 ASSIGNED PI netblocks in the RIPE DB, comprising a mixture of recently assigned PI blocks, and a bunch of older network blocks from the days when RIPE used to allocate /16's without too much justification. Of these 18000 blocks, about: 850 are < /24 10285 are /24 (2.5% of ASSIGNED PI space in RIPE) 2650 are /23 1650 are /22 2550 are > /22 (94.3% of ASSIGNED PI space in RIPE) >From a cursory glance, it would appear that a bunch of these assignments are misregistered or are subregistrations of other old ASSIGNED PI blocks. Particularly notable are the NRENs and the older ISPs, which would have been allocated large blocks a long time ago. These blocks are now classified as ASSIGNED PI instead of ASSIGNED PA. Much of this IP address space is aggregated in the routing tables and does not present much cause for worry from that perspective. Given that there are only ~850 assignments < /24, it would seem reasonable to assume that 2006-05 will cause only a very marginal increase in the amount of address space used for PI announcements. Therefore there seems little reason to reject the proposal because of address space wastage. Yes, a small amount of address space will be wasted, but in the grand scheme of things, very little. Nick

1 0

DRAFT agenda for RIPE 53 address policy WG meeting
by Gert Doering 15 Sep '06

15 Sep '06

Hi APWG folks, here's a first draft of an agenda for the RIPE53 address policy meeting in Amsterdam in two weeks. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday afternoon, October 5, 2006, 14:00-15:30 local time. The overall RIPE meeting outline is available at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/meeting-plan.html The list of plenary presentations scheduled may become available at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/ (empty right now) Please send me your comments pretty quickly, as we need to hand in the agenda for printing fairly soon. Gert Doering -- APWG Co-Chair --------------------------- snip ------------------------- A. Administrative Matters - Welcome - Select a scribe - Distribute participants list - Finalise agenda - Approve minutes from RIPE 52: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r52-minutes.html <if you have any comments on the minutes, please let me/the list know> - point people to mailing list B. finding of a new APWG Chair / new Co-Chair(s) - Hans-Petter Holen is proposing to step down as WG chair (and become a co-chair) due to high work load / little spare time - Andrea Borgato seems to have fallen off the net --> volunteers welcome! C. ongoing/current address policy proposals in the RIPE region * 2005-02 - IP Assignments for anycasting DNS * 2005-08 - amend IPv6 assignment and utilization requirement * 2005-12 - 4-byte AS number policy * 2006-01 - Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 assigmnets for end users * 2006-02 - IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy * 2006-04 - Contact e-mail Address Requirements * 2006-05 - (IPv4) PI Assignment Size * 2006-06 - IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period (misleading title) * 2006-07 - Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window the idea is to have a presentation by Filiz Yilmaz from the RIPE NCC (thanks!) in the plenary session on Wednesday, and discussions about individual proposals in the working group session on Thursday. For the most recent policy proposals, I think it would be a good idea to have a very brief presentation from the proposer, explaining the rationale behind the proposal. D. Update on global IANA/ICANN policies * IPv6 ICANN->RIR distribution policy update E. ongoing policy work in other regions * presentation in the plenary * plus discussion time in the WG slot Z. AOB -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 88685 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234

1 0

ICANN Ratifies Global Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Address Space
by Axel Pawlik 12 Sep '06

12 Sep '06

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails.] Dear Colleagues, Please find below an announcement on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 7 September 2006, the ICANN Board ratified the Global Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Address Space. This policy provides for the allocation of IPv6 address space from ICANN to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). On 13 July 2006, the Secretary of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Address Council (AC) forwarded to ICANN the proposed global policy for allocation of IPv6 address space. This proposed global policy had been submitted to the ASO AC by the Executive Council of the Number Resource Organization on 6 June 2006, and adopted by the ASO AC on 12 July 2006. Each RIR community individually discussed the policy and approved its adoption via their own policy development processes. The Global Addressing Policy document is available from the ASO website at: http://aso.icann.org/docs/aso-global-ipv6.pdf The ICANN announcement is available from the ICANN website at: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-11sep06.htm nro-announce mailing list information: nro-announce(a)nro.net https://www.nro.net/nro-lists/listinfo/nro-announce ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

Re:2006-06 New Policy Proposal (IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period)]
by Jeroen Massar 12 Sep '06

12 Sep '06

Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2006-06 IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period The subject of this proposal sounds a *lot* like: "The maximum period that an IPv4 prefix will be allocated to the LIR" while instead is meant (what I read from the rest of the text and taunted some others with who also read it differently ;) : "The maximum period over which we will ask the LIR to foresee the future developments and requests that it will make" Thus the subject is sort of misleading, maybe a better naming would be: "2006-06 Maximum Period used in Determination of New IPv4 Allocations" but I'll leave the exact wording to be filled in by the rest of the APWG members. One extra note, in case RIPE at a certain point accepts one of the "IPv6 PI" proposals, then the above might be applicable to those too. For the rest, the proposal sounds good to me, especially in light of making policies more equal globally. Greets, Jeroen

1 0

Urgent: NRO NC Nominations
by Paul Rendek 01 Sep '06

01 Sep '06

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails.] Dear Colleagues, During the process of collecting nominations for the available seat on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council (NC), we experienced problems with incoming e-mail to nominations(a)ripe.net. Unfortunately, this may have resulted in the loss of some nominations and supporting e-mails. If you have sent a nomination or a supporting e-mail to nominations(a)ripe.net, please check to see if it is listed at: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2006/confirmed-nominations.html ============================================================================================================================ * If you do not see your nomination or supporting e-mail on the web page mentioned above, please re-send it as soon a possible to: nominations(a)ripe.net * ============================================================================================================================ For more information about the NRO NC election process, please see: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2006/ We apologise for any inconvenience caused. Kind regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services & Communications RIPE NCC

1 0