November 2007 - address-policy-wg

/24 in Europe, AP and North America?
by Hank Nussbacher 30 Nov '07

30 Nov '07

This may have been covered before but I'm not sure. I have a client that needs a /24 in Europe, a /24 in AP and a /24 in North America - all for multihoming purposes (in each area). If he becomes a RIPE member, can he get the 3 /24s and 3 ASNs of which only one set will be used in Europe? Or just get the /19 like everyone else, and carve it into 3 chunks and route them each from a different area? Thanks, Hank

4 3

2005-08 Implementation
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails.] Dear Colleagues, We previously announced that the policy proposal 2005-08, "Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy" had been accepted by the RIPE community. This policy has now been implemented by the RIPE NCC and the following RIPE Documents have been published: ripe-421, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-421.html ripe-422, "Supporting Notes for the IPv6 First Allocation Request Form" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-422.html ripe-425, "IPv6 First Allocation Request Form" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-425.html Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

2007-09 New Policy Proposal (Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool)
by Filiz Yilmaz 26 Nov '07

26 Nov '07

PDP Number: 2007-09 Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This policy will establish a process for RIR-to-RIR redistribution of the tail-end of the IPv4 pool, taking effect after the IANA Reserve is exhausted. Each redistribution Allocation will be triggered by the recipient RIR depleting its reserve to a 30 day supply, and will result in up to a 3 month supply being transferred from the RIR with the longest remaining time before it exhausts its own pool. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-09.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 24 December 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Filiz Yilmaz 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This proposal outlines a framework to migrate previously allocated IPv4 resources from one Local Internet Registry (LIR) to another LIR within the RIPE NCC Service Region. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 20 November 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

14 24

Commercial IPv6 firewall support
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 07 Nov '07

07 Nov '07

Some people have claimed that they cannot yet sell IPv6 Internet access because there is no IPv6 firewall support. According to this ICANN study: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac021.pdf this is not quite true. At least 30% of the 42 vendors surveyed, had IPv6 support. According to this talk <http://www.guug.de/veranstaltungen/ecai6-2007/slides/2007-ECA-I6-Status -IPv6-Firewalling-PeterBieringer-Talk.pdf> many open-source and commercial firewalls supporting IPv6 are available. IPCop is based on Linux <http://www.ipcop.org/index.php?module=pnWikka&tag=IPCopScreenshots> m0n0wall is based on FreeBSD <http://m0n0.ch/wall/screenshots.php> pfSense is also based on FreeBSD <http://pfsense.com/index.php?id=26> FWBuilder is a management tool that builds filter setups for several different firewalls. <http://www.fwbuilder.org/archives/cat_screenshots.html> Checkpoint FW1 NGX R65 on SecurePlatform supports IPv6 FortiGate supports IPv6 in FortiOS 3.0 and up. Juniper SSG (formerly Netscreen) supports IPv6 in ScreenOS 6.0 and up. Cisco ASA (formerly PIX) supports IPv6 in version 7.0 and up. I suspect that the people complaining about IPv6 support are partially complaining because they have older hardware that the vendor does not plan to upgrade to IPv6 support until they have all features implemented in their newer products, and partially complaining because their vendor has not implemented some feature which they happen to use. Commercial firewall support may be lagging behind OS and router support, but not by much. And if commercial vendors are not responsive, maybe you should try pricing out an open source solution with a consultant. I believe there is a gap here that startup firewall companies could fill if they understand the enterprise market. --Michael Dillon

3 3

Hi, i need information
by Juan Felipe Botero Vega 07 Nov '07

07 Nov '07

Hi, I am working in a common project between the UPC (University Polithecnic of Catalonia, Spain) and Heanet (Ireland's National Education and Research Network). I know this is not a RPSL forum, but i need to know something about this language. In the RFC 2622 RPSL is well defined, but i don't have clear if it is possible to use RPSL for internal routing. My question is: is it possible to use RPSL to perform the following actions: 1. Configure a router announcing it's the networks it has connected to. 2. Configure the routing protocols in each router (this question depends directly of the previous one) 3. Configure the *routing policies *inside the network (i am not referring to BGP policies but policies of access control in each router inside a network). This could be applied also to OSPF areas?? Thanks for your attention.

2 1

2005-08 Proposal Accepted (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
by Filiz Yilmaz 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

PDP Number: 2005-08 Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy Dear Colleagues Consensus has been reached on the proposal described in 2005-08 and it is accepted by the RIPE community. This proposal is to amend the RIPE IPv6 address allocation policies regarding the definition of the default size of End Site allocations, the threshold value for End Site allocation efficiency, and the method of calculation of the End Site allocation efficiency metric. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08.html We will implement this new policy in approximately three weeks and notify you when it becomes effective. Thank you for your input. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by jwkckid1＠ix.netcom.com 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

Max and all, why can't it be enforced now? Why can these unused IP's be reclimed or at least parto of them? -----Original Message----- >From: Max Tulyev <president(a)ukraine.su> >Sent: Nov 3, 2007 4:40 PM >To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net >Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) > >Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >>> Leo has already proved that a (fairly simple) reclamation job takes a >>> lot of time and resource. This is for a /8 that no one much wanted and >>> no one much used. >> >> Was that the 14/8 thing? Only 129 individual addresses out of 16777216 >> where used. Maybe just reclaiming the other 16777087 would have been >> more efficient. > >May be. But sorry, you can't enforce it now. You even have no time to >make an implemented in the real life policy that can reclaim any block >before free IP space will be finished. > >So, we have to live with market. Not only because of it. The only we >can do is to make that market white and clear. > >-- >WBR, >Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO) > 'Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com

3 3

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by jwkckid1＠ix.netcom.com 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

Max and all, That's my guess also Max. >;) -----Original Message----- >From: Max Tulyev <president(a)ukraine.su> >Sent: Nov 3, 2007 4:42 PM >To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net >Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) > > >Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >> I'm quickly approaching my posting limit for the day (week?) but I can't >> resist telling you the following story: >> >> I recently found myself somewhere where BitTorrent is severely >> throttled. Although I can download over HTTP at megabytes per second, >> BitTorrent downloads wouldn't go faster than 10 kilobytes per second. >> >> Turns out that the newest Azureus (BitTorrent application) supports >> IPv6. Enabled this and lo and behold: I got about 75 peers, 5 of which >> were IPv6, the rest IPv4. Of the IPv6 peers, one had a regular IPv6 >> address, the other four 6to4 addresses. Even though the 70 IPv4 peers >> could only give me 10 kB/s, the 5 IPv6 peers pushed my download well >> beyond 100 kB/s. > >May be that's just because of your rating in these peering networks? ;) > >-- >WBR, >Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO) > 'Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Tim Streater 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

At 15:14 29/10/2007, Mark Pace Balzan wrote: > > > > IPv6 Internet is working even now, but completely useless. Because of > > there is no resources at all. > > > > In my opinion, the concrete goal is make 51% of _resources_ > > (not users) > > to be reachable through IPv6 before we run out of IPv4. If it > > succeeds, > > other 49% will go with "the majority", if not - IPv6 migration > > completely fails and something other (NAT, secondary market of IPv4, > > higher level proxies over non-IP protocols, ...) will be implemented > > instead. > > > >my 2c worth: > >v4 and v6 will co-exist for a while, whether we like it or not, and >therefore v4 and v6 stuff will need a way to get to each other depending >on the service at hand. They will co-exist for a long while due to lack of pressure from the users. If v4 really runs out, there will start to be some parts of the Internet that are not accessible to some users. Then they will complain to their ISP and something starts to happen. Then it gets in the mainstream press, at which point you may see a more rapid transition. Plenty of people will however say, why should I bother to get a new xxx box when I can reach all sites I care about. Unless the govts get involved, of course. -- Tim

7 10