May 2009 - address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

2008-05 New Draft Documents Published (Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM)
by Filiz Yilmaz 22 Jun '09

22 Jun '09

PDP Number: 2008-05 Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM Dear Colleagues The text of the policy proposal 2008-05, "Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM" has been revised. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today. The draft documents for the proposal have also been published, as well as the impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-05.html and the draft documents at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-449-draft2008-05.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-450-draft2008-05.html We encourage you to read the draft documents and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 23 April 2009. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

14 34

2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
by Filiz Yilmaz 04 Jun '09

04 Jun '09

PDP Number: 2009-06 Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 June 2009. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

30 37

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
by poty＠iiat.ru 02 Jun '09

02 Jun '09

Nick, just because there is the word "private". Why should RIPE or some other organization (including mine) provide the registration and supporting service (for example - uniqueness) for PRIVATE networks? If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies - it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means for achieving that! Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:18 AM To: Frederic Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) On 27/05/2009 17:41, Frederic wrote: > but we suggest that may be a good rule to write somewhere that it's ask > to LIR to garant routing. > > so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let choice > for operator so it let choice to not garant routing. from my other mail to this mailing list: "- just because an organisation hasn't announced an ipv6 prefix on the Internet-with-a-capital-I[*], that doesn't mean they aren't using the address space for other entirely valid purposes." Frederic, can you please explain why a LIR which: 1. requires an ipv6 allocation for use on a private network 2. meets all the other requirements of the IPv6 address allocation policy 3. requires unique addresses (e.g. interconnecting with other private ipv6 networks) ... shouldn't be granted a RIPE IPv6 allocation? Or are you trying to say that there is only a single valid IPv6 network in the world? Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick(a)inex.ie [*] whatever the "Internet-with-a-capital-I" means

4 3

Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by Andy Davidson 31 May '09

31 May '09

On 31 May 2009, at 11:28, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > "Andy Davidson" <andy(a)nosignal.org> wrote: > >> IP networks can't function properly (or at least, as intended) when >> consumers of addresses start using addresses that are already >> assigned to others already. >> >> We shall see this be a problem for networks who ignore this warning >> as the last v4 /8s start to be assigned. > > Actually who is mandated to act as a policeman when this happens? > Is it IANA? Is it the RIRs? Is it informal routing agreements > outside the realm of these organizations? Nobody - just as nobody can guarantee reach-ability. Andy

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 31 May '09

31 May '09

See in-line: > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of michael.dillon(a)bt.com > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 2:03 PM > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Let me describe a real situation that we have with some > of our customers. One of several IP networks that we > operate is called Radianz. This network has PoPs in > 120 countries and has over 3000 customers connected > to it, many of them with multiple connections in different > cities. This network is an internetwork because it > interconnects the networks of 3000 other organizations. > In order to function, this network requires globally > unique IP addresses to be used for each of its > member networks even though it is not connected to > the Internet. > > The Radianz network is not a private network. It is > also not a public network. But it is a SHARED network > just like the public Internet. Then Radianz could easily create its own rules without bothering the World, couldn't it? And so - use ANY IP addresses. Why should I see the internal networks (I use corrected "private" meanings) of Radianz or other such companys? If it is NEVER interact with my or the most of other networks in the Internet? > Historically, IANA has > always allocated globally unique IP addresses to > organizations on this type of shared network. When > RFC 2050 was written by authors from the RIRs, including > RIPE, they included this text: > > the organization has no intention of connecting to > the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still > requires a globally unique IP address. The organization > should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918. > If it is determined this is not possible, they can be > issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses. > Now, the "historically" invented state should be corrected. Not all IPv4 practice should be automatically go to IPv6. Several of them are too company-specific rather than serve ALL community. > > A very large number of organizations depend on these > internetworks, and they would not be terribly happy if > ISPs would hijack the entire IP address space for their > own profits. But I think that the RIR boards understand > this and have no intention of changing the rules to > reserve IP addresses only for the public Internet. A very large, but not all! A very large number of organization (I think much more than for Radianz) depends on the services, not presented here and not gain any good from that. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

2 1

2009-07 New Policy Proposal (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries)
by Filiz Yilmaz 31 May '09

31 May '09

PDP Number: 2009-07 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-07.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 24 June 2009. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

5 4

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 30 May '09

30 May '09

I think you intentionally make confusion for everyone. ----Your---------- This is wrong. The Internet Protocol (IP) was not invented only to create the public Internet. It was created so that all networks, that want to interconnect with another network, have an internetworking protocol that does the job. The public Internet is the biggest internetwork but it is not the only one. Globally unique addresses are required so that a network can interconnect with other networks without renumbering. --------------- Nobody, including me, prevents you or someone else to using IP addresses! The term "Globally unique addresses" is useful if you mean PUBLIC part of the network. In my own network I can use the address I like, not involving the RIPE or any other organizations and rules. If I want to interconnect with another network I should agree with the network only, not with all the world. ----Your---------- The RIRs are not there to serve the Internet. They are there to serve the users of IP technology which is a bigger group than just the Internet. It is OK for RIPE to provide services that are only needed on the Internet, but it is not nice if RIPE would stop providing services to IP users who are not connected to the Internet. --------------- Not at all: "The RIPE NCC is an independent, not-for-profit membership organisation that supports the infrastructure of the Internet through technical co-ordination in its service region. The most prominent activity of the RIPE NCC is to act as the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) providing global Internet resources and related services (IPv4, IPv6 and AS Number resources) to members in the RIPE NCC service region." The users, that not connected to the Internet, are not in scope of the RIPE. IP is not the only network technology. And the network is not the only activity in the World.

3 2

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 29 May '09

29 May '09

IPv4 exists most of it's time without RIR at all. So it's not prove anything. Other consideration is only philosophy, not policy. > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of michael.dillon(a)bt.com > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 2:29 PM > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] > ... > > IPv4 runout proves that the historical ways are the right ways. > > --Michael Dillon >

3 2

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 29 May '09

29 May '09

Not each other, but all to some! From: David Freedman [mailto:david.freedman@uk.clara.net] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 2:06 PM To: Potapov Vladislav; jeroen(a)unfix.org Cc: nick(a)inex.ie; frederic(a)placenet.org; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] >It's the problem of the merging banks or any other companies, not the >whole World. Why RIPE should do the work for them? I distill that argument down to "why should we help eachother", this is starting to go seriously off-topic now. Dave.

2 1

RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 29 May '09

29 May '09

Jeroen, The clash is about: * RIR-space + guaranteed globally unique + CAN be routed on the internet - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it My point of view: RIR-s space is for routing on the Internet. Not for private use! So it MUST be routed on the Internet. And private networks should invent their own rules, personally I will not object that as far as it is not affect my access to public part of the Internet! -----Original Message----- From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jeroen@unfix.org] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:37 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: david.freedman(a)uk.clara.net; nick(a)inex.ie; frederic(a)placenet.org; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > Maybe you are right, but it doesn't prove that is IS good in IPv6 > world too. I can't understand, why I should think about such private > matters (and indirectly fund this) and count it as arguments in the > RIPE's policy development? If the allocation will never be announced > to the public network called the Internet, then it's not the scope of our thinking! IPv4: * RFC1918 + just grab - everybody in the world uses it, lots of clashes - not suitable for interconnecting ever to other networks - generally implies a lot of NAT at one point in time * RIR-space + guaranteed globally unique - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it IPv6: * ULA, RFC4193 + nobody to talk to, calculate your own - never to be used anywhere on the Internet - not 100.00000% sure that it is globally unique (also see http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/ for a 'registry' which would make it at least "unique" when everybody uses that) - could imply NAT, though that should not be used with IPv6 * RIR-space + guaranteed globally unique + can be routed on the internet - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it You can pick what you want, but heed the warnings. Greets, Jeroen

4 3

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 29 May '09

29 May '09

See in-line-2 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jeroen@unfix.org] > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:57 PM ... > You are going to require that people route everything onto the > Internet? > Not going to happen. There are a lot of assigned blocks which you will > never ever see on the Internet. And why would they be, it is their > network, thus theirs to route or not, to firewall or not. > 1. "assigned" blocks is not the things, that involves the routing. If you mean allocations - say that. 2. If it is THEIR networks, why the need GLOBALLY unique addresses? Then they could use ANY addresses they like not asking me, or you, or RIPE! > > And private networks > > should invent their own rules, personally I will not object that as > > far as it is not affect my access to public part of the Internet! > > You mean a separate registry so that when people are "OH I WANT > INTERNETZ" that they simply announce their prefix, which clashes with > real prefixes on the Internet !? That will be a lot of fun. I think you can't understand what is difference between private usage and announcing the block in the Internet. If you want to use some IP addresses privately, you can do it without any RIR. And only in the case you want to announce some block to the public network, you have to abide the Internet rules and get unique numbers! > The sole reason for having registries in the first place is to make > sure these little numbers are globally unique and that they thus don't > clash. > > Ever tried to merge the network of a couple of banks after they where > acquired by each other and all where using 192.168.0.0/16 in their > internal "totally private" networks? > > Uniqueness is what is needed there for that to work. > It's the problem of the merging banks or any other companies, not the whole World. Why RIPE should do the work for them? Or take in the consideration the internal problems of SOME cases into the whole region policy? Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

2 1

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 29 May '09

29 May '09

See in-line -----Original Message----- From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jeroen@unfix.org] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:57 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: david.freedman(a)uk.clara.net; nick(a)inex.ie; frederic(a)placenet.org; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > The clash is about: > > * RIR-space > + guaranteed globally unique > + *CAN* be routed on the internet > - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it > > My point of view: RIR-s space is for routing on the Internet. Not for > private use! So it MUST be routed on the Internet. Bad point of view. You are going to require that people route everything onto the Internet? Not going to happen. There are a lot of assigned blocks which you will never ever see on the Internet. And why would they be, it is their network, thus theirs to route or not, to firewall or not. 1. "assigned" blocks is not the things, that involves the routing. If you mean allocations - say that. 2. If it is THEIR networks, why the need GLOBALLY unique addresses? Then they could use ANY addresses they like not asking me, or you, or RIPE! > And private networks > should invent their own rules, personally I will not object that as > far as it is not affect my access to public part of the Internet! You mean a separate registry so that when people are "OH I WANT INTERNETZ" that they simply announce their prefix, which clashes with real prefixes on the Internet !? That will be a lot of fun. I think you can't understand what is difference between private usage and announcing the block in the Internet. If you want to use some IP addresses privately, you can do it without any RIR. And only in the case you want to announce some block to the public network, you have to abide the Internet rules and get unique numbers! The sole reason for having registries in the first place is to make sure these little numbers are globally unique and that they thus don't clash. Ever tried to merge the network of a couple of banks after they where acquired by each other and all where using 192.168.0.0/16 in their internal "totally private" networks? Uniqueness is what is needed there for that to work. It's the problem of the merging banks or any other companies, not the whole World. Why RIPE should do the work for them? Or take in the consideration the internal problems of SOME cases into the whole region policy? Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

2 1

RE: RIPE policies and routing, was Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
by poty＠iiat.ru 29 May '09

29 May '09

Shane, I'm fully agree with you! It's a pity I can't write this as clear as you! The RIPE was created for distributing resources for routing. Someone can't say RIPE is not routing policy because of that. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Shane Kerr Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:46 PM To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: RIPE policies and routing, was Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) All, I am neutral on this proposal, but I do have some thoughts about an assertion that has been made several times in the discussion: On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 01:09 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 26/05/2009 15:30, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > > PDP Number: 2009-06 > > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy > > I support this proposal for the usual arguments: > > - RIPE are not the routing police > - important to maintain separation of address assignment policy from > routing policy I think the idea that RIPE is not the routing police was mostly created to prevent people from calling in the RIPE NCC when someone would not peer with them or otherwise accept their advertisements. I do not think that this idea is meant to say that RIPE policies cannot include any routing requirements. For example, in the ASN policy (currently RIPE 463) we see: Current guidelines require a network to be multi-homed for an AS Number to be assigned. Requests must show the routing policy of the Autonomous System. As far as "policing" goes, RIPE is also not the DNS police, but we seem to be quite happy to restrict reverse delegations based on a huge set of checks (e-mail checks? really??): http://www.ripe.net/rs/reverse/delcheck/delcheck_descr.html If we look at the global IPv6 allocation and assignment policy shared by all RIRs (currently RIPE 466 in the RIPE region), they have the same principles, one of which is "aggregation". The text reads (in part): Wherever possible, address space should be distributed in a hierarchical manner, according to the topology of network infrastructure. This is necessary to permit the aggregation of routing information by ISPs and to limit the expansion of Internet routing tables. This goal is particularly important in IPv6 addressing, where the size of the total address pool creates significant implications for both internal and external routing. IPv6 address policies should seek to avoid fragmentation of address ranges. Note the last sentence there especially. I observe that RIPE policies can and do dictate routing requirements. Further, routing and address allocation are linked. Changing one will affect the other. Otherwise we wouldn't bother trying to make allocations that can be easily aggregated. I am *not* saying that it is a good idea to put routing requirements into policies. But we should not reject such requirements simply because "RIPE are not the routing police". Cheers, -- Shane

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
by poty＠iiat.ru 29 May '09

29 May '09

Maybe you are right, but it doesn't prove that is IS good in IPv6 world too. I can't understand, why I should think about such private matters (and indirectly fund this) and count it as arguments in the RIPE's policy development? If the allocation will never be announced to the public network called the Internet, then it's not the scope of our thinking! From: David Freedman [mailto:david.freedman@uk.clara.net] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:18 PM To: Potapov Vladislav; nick(a)inex.ie; frederic(a)placenet.org Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) Vladislav, this is a function that the RIPE NCC have always provided, if this relationship is truely private then I would suggest consulting RFC1918 or RFC4193. ------------------------------------------------ David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Limited http://www.clara.net -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net on behalf of poty(a)iiat.ru Sent: Fri 5/29/2009 09:12 To: nick(a)inex.ie; frederic(a)placenet.org Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) Nick, just because there is the word "private". Why should RIPE or some other organization (including mine) provide the registration and supporting service (for example - uniqueness) for PRIVATE networks? If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies - it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means for achieving that! Potapov Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:18 AM To: Frederic Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) On 27/05/2009 17:41, Frederic wrote: > but we suggest that may be a good rule to write somewhere that it's ask > to LIR to garant routing. > > so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let choice > for operator so it let choice to not garant routing. from my other mail to this mailing list: "- just because an organisation hasn't announced an ipv6 prefix on the Internet-with-a-capital-I[*], that doesn't mean they aren't using the address space for other entirely valid purposes." Frederic, can you please explain why a LIR which: 1. requires an ipv6 allocation for use on a private network 2. meets all the other requirements of the IPv6 address allocation policy 3. requires unique addresses (e.g. interconnecting with other private ipv6 networks) ... shouldn't be granted a RIPE IPv6 allocation? Or are you trying to say that there is only a single valid IPv6 network in the world? Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick(a)inex.ie [*] whatever the "Internet-with-a-capital-I" means

2 1

2007-01 Phase 2 Implementation: Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC
by Andrea Cima 28 May '09

28 May '09

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that the RIPE NCC has implemented the second phase of "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC". In this phase the RIPE NCC will contact all LIRs to request information regarding existing direct resources requested through that LIR. This will be done via the LIR Portal. All LIR Portal users will receive a notification email on 28 May 2009 detailing the process. Details of the implementation are available at: http://www.ripe.net/rs/pi-existing-assignments.html Timelines: Before September 2009: LIRs need to indicate which resources should stay with that LIR. This will affect the charging scheme for 2010. Before 31 December 2009: LIRs must upload contracts and registration papers for all resources still associated with that LIR. More information on the requirements of the contractual agreement can be found here: http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-requirements.html Kind regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC

2 1

2009-02 Moved to Review Phase (Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC)
by Ingrid Wijte 26 May '09

26 May '09

PDP Number: 2009-02 Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues The draft document for the proposal described in 2009-02 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. This proposal sets out how the RIPE NCC can allocate/assign resources to itself. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-02.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2009-02-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 June 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2009-05 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
by Ingrid Wijte 26 May '09

26 May '09

PDP Number: 2009-05 Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs Dear Colleagues The proposal 2009-05, "Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs" has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-05.html The proposer, together with the Working Group Chairs, decided to withdraw this proposal due to insufficient support for it as it is written. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Historical questions about ip address policy
by Hank Nussbacher 24 May '09

24 May '09

At 06:25 PM 21-05-09 -0400, Milton L Mueller wrote: >2. When (i.e., what year) did RIPE-NCC first charge fees for services or >addresses? http://ftp.eenet.ee/doc/ripe/ripe-087.pdf From page 4: "Funding for the first year of operation of the NCC has been provided by EARN, the full national members of RARE, Israel and EUnet. These organisations have agreed to guarantee funding of NCC operation during the remaining three quarters of 1993." -Hank

1 0

Historical questions about ip address policy
by Milton L Mueller 22 May '09

22 May '09

If anyone knows the answer to these questions they will help in a policy study I am doing 1. When (i.e., what year) did RIPE-NCC first require RSAs or contracts as a condition of registering an address allocation or assignment? 2. When (i.e., what year) did RIPE-NCC first charge fees for services or addresses? 3. When (i.e., what year) did RIRs generally or RIPE-NCC specifically begin to use the 80% HD Ratio as a criterion for eligibility to receive more addresses? If this is considered too off-topic for this list please answer privately. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org

4 3

New RIPE Document: ripe-470
by Filiz Yilmaz 20 May '09

20 May '09

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE Document, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", has been updated. You can find the new document, ripe-470, at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-470.html This document obsoletes ripe-428. The update was limited to textual improvements to the document. There are no changes to the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). The document also contains an updated policy proposal template and a new PDP timeline graphic. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

2008-05 Last Call for Comments (Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM)
by Ingrid Wijte 12 May '09

12 May '09

PDP Number: 2008-05 Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2008-05 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-05.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 June 2009. Regards, Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

IPv4 PI assignment statistics
by Alex Le Heux 07 May '09

07 May '09

Dear Colleagues, During the Address Policy Working Group session at RIPE58, statistics were requested about the number and size of IPv4 PI prefixes that the RIPE NCC has assigned over the last few years. NOTE: The numbers for 2009 contain data up to May 2009. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 /16 0 1 0 0 1 /17 0 1 1 0 0 /18 1 2 3 10 1 /19 3 7 4 12 7 /20 25 28 23 44 14 /21 51 56 89 100 26 /22 260 261 261 402 111 /23 385 464 778 571 159 /24 726 897 973 1046 292 /25 10 22 8 8 5 /26 7 6 8 5 0 /27 5 8 7 7 2 /28 0 8 0 1 0 /29 2 1 0 8 0 Total 1475 1762 2155 2214 618 Please let us know if you require any further information. Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE NCC Now Accepting Requests for IPv6 PI Assignments
by Scott Donald 06 May '09

06 May '09

[Apologies for duplicate emails.] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that the RIPE NCC now accept requests for IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) assignments. This follows the accepted policy proposal 2006-01 "Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations". The request form and supporting notes are available from the RIPE Document Store at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6.html Requests can also be made via the LIR Portal, which is available at: https://lirportal.ripe.net/ IPv6 PI assignments will come from reserved block 2001:678::/29. You may want to update your filters. Regards, Scott Donald Registration Services RIPE NCC

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] Principles for the use of the last IPv4 /8 address space in the RIPE NCC Region
by Kelaidi Christina 05 May '09

05 May '09

Dear Sander Thank you for the e-mail. ETNO is aware of the policy proposals currently discussed in the RIPE community regarding the last /8. From the existing proposals it is clear that only 2009-04 is compliant to these principles. Christina Kelaidi -----Original Message----- From: Sander Steffann [mailto:sander@steffann.nl] Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 1:22 PM To: Kelaidi Christina Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Principles for the use of the last IPv4 /8 address space in the RIPE NCC Region Hello Christina, > ETNO has prepared an Expert Contribution on the Principles for the use > of the last IPv4 /8 address space in the RIPE NCC region, based on a > previous contribution with regard to IPv4 address exhaustion presented > in the RIPE address-policy-wg mailing list in May 2008. According to > ETNO any policy proposal relevant to the use of the last IPv4 /8 > address space should satisfy the principles contained in this > contribution in order to permit both a fair and equitable use of the > last IPv4 /8 address space and a flexible approach with regard to its > management. Thank you for your input. We currently have two policy proposals for the last /8: 2008-06: Use of Final /8 2009-04: IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment I think the best way forward would be for you to participate in the discussions related to these policy proposals on this mailing list. Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair ********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. ******************************** ********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. ********************************

1 0

Principles for the use of the last IPv4 /8 address space in the RIPE NCC Region
by Kelaidi Christina 04 May '09

04 May '09

Dear colleagues ETNO has prepared an Expert Contribution on the Principles for the use of the last IPv4 /8 address space in the RIPE NCC region, based on a previous contribution with regard to IPv4 address exhaustion presented in the RIPE address-policy-wg mailing list in May 2008. According to ETNO any policy proposal relevant to the use of the last IPv4 /8 address space should satisfy the principles contained in this contribution in order to permit both a fair and equitable use of the last IPv4 /8 address space and a flexible approach with regard to its management. Introduction ETNO recognises that with the theoretical date of exhaustion of IPv4 public addresses fast approaching, principles ensuring fair and equitable use of the last /8 address space in the RIPE NCC region are required. This contribution presents a number of such principles in order to initiate such discussions that are intended to lead to a RIPE NCC policy. ETNO in a previous contribution with regard to IPv4 address exhaustion identified a number of principles associated with the management of IPv4 public addresses as exhaust approached. These principles form the basis of the principles below as applied to the last /8 address space. In the development of this Expert Contribution, regarding the use of the last IPv4/8, ETNO wants to guarantee that any policy developed is based upon the fair and equitable allocation of address space to all LIR's, irrespective of whether they are new or existing. Principles Demonstrated Need Allocation Allocation of IPv4 addresses from the last IPv4 /8 should be treated the same way for all Registries (LIR), and should be in response to their demonstrated need. Pre-determined Use Assignment from the last IPv4 /8 should only be used to facilitate the deployment of IPv6 Public address resource by the LIR. Size of Address Allocation The size of any allocation from the last IPv4 /8 should be based upon flexibility, recognising that it is an allocation from the last /8, and meeting the needs of the applicant. As a consequence the size of address allocated may require adaptation of the current and existing allocation rules. Predictability of Allocation Relevant policies associated with the allocation from the last IPv4 /8 should be announced well in advance in order to give sufficient time for operators and ISPs through their LIRs to be prepared. Conclusion ETNO supports the development of a RIPE policy detailing how the last IPv4 /8 will be deployed in order to ensure clarity for all stakeholders. ETNO believes that the above principles should be the basis of any RIPE policy related to the last IPv4 /8 and supported by the implementation of appropriate measures and actions. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues (NANI) WG Chairperson ETNO (European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association) is representing 40 major companies from 34 European countries, providing electronic communications networks over fixed, mobile or personal communications systems. ETNO's primary purpose is to establish a constructive dialogue between its member companies and actors involved in the development of the European Information Society to the benefit of users. More information on ETNO can be found at: www.etno.be.

2 1