February 2011 - address-policy-wg

2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
by Emilio Madaio 26 Apr '11

26 Apr '11

Dear Colleagues, Following the feedback received at RIPE 60, the proposal 2006-05 was taken over by a new proposer and a new version was produced. The draft document for the new version of the proposal has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html and the draft document at: http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-492-draft2006-05.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 November 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

10 16

RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
by Kurt Smolderen 21 Mar '11

21 Mar '11

I strongly support the idea of assigning a smaller prefix to ISPs which are in a state of deploying IPv6 but need to use transitional mechanism for (some of) their customers. Mark has described one of the problems very clear in his email: if an ISP has only a /32 prefix and needs to use all 32 IPv4 bits in the 6rd configuration, only a /64 can be delivered to the home instead of the desired /56 or /48. Needing all 32 bits is for instance the case when an ISP offers internet connectivity to some of its customers via a partnership with another ISP. However, I want to point to an additional problem which appears when an ISP wants to deploy native IPv6 but needs to roll out 6rd (or any other transitional technique) as well. For native IPv6, the ISP will create an IPv6 addressing plan. This will normally include separate prefixes for the ISP's own servers, the ISP's backbone, the ISP's customers etc. For the 6rd domain, the full /32 range is however needed. So at this stage, the ISP has two options: 1) Implement 6rd only 2) Implement native IPv6 only and exclude some customers from being able to use IPv6 (those which would normally be connected through 6rd) I strongly believe we all agree 6rd is only a temporary solution. So I can't imagine we would prefer skipping native IPv6 deployments in favor of IPv6 transitional mechanisms. I also believe we all agree we should enable IPv6 for as much customers as we can, which makes me conclude the second 'option' is not really an option at all... My primary concern is that any ISP - regardless of how small or big it is - can independently of other organizations/ ISPs move forward with IPv6 deployment. RIPE can support this by adapting a policy which - albeit for a limited time span - allows the assignment of a contiguous IPv6 prefix which size does not only depend on the amount of customers the ISP has, but also incorporates the needed technologies to 'IPv6-enable' as much customers as possible. Regards, -Kurt

7 17

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
by Igor Ybema 03 Mar '11

03 Mar '11

Hi, I'm new to the list but would like to comment on this subject. I'm also trying to receive IPv6 PI for a webhosting customer of us which seems to be a big problem. I do not understand why everyone claims that 'the routing table growth' is the reason not to allow too much IPv6 PI. Those currently having IPv4 PI would of course require IPv6 PI because they still want to be indepentent. If they need to be a LIR to get IPv6 PA the problem is not solved for the routing-table issue. A prefix is still entered into the same global routing-table. I would suggest changing the IPv6 PI policy to make it more clear for hosting/isp company's to get IPv6 PI by enforcing that the equipment on which the IPv6 addresses are installed in rooms accessible by that company. Multi-homing is a good reason also. I'm not sure if we should delete that reason. This makes the company more aware that they are really independend. This suggestion solves two things: - large broadband ISP's with CPE in office-building, homes etc do not fit into this policy. The equipment is behind other company's doors. This enforces these company's to assign block to their customers from PA space as it was meant to be. - small ISP's/hosting company's with a few racks installed at one ore more DC's (which we talk about in this postings) do fit into this policy and will be independend to their internet suppliers. Of course, they should request another PI (or get assigned-PA from a LIR) for their customers which buy dedicated racks from them and receiving their own key to the lock. This is exactly what we would like to see it. What do other people on the list think about this? regards, Igor Ybema

8 11

New IPv4 block allocated to RIPE NCC
by Andrea Cima 01 Mar '11

01 Mar '11

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [Apologies for duplicate mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has received the IPv4 address range 185/8 from the IANA. This is the final allocation of IPv4 address space that the RIPE NCC will receive from the IANA as stated in ripe-436, "Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space". The minimum allocation size for this /8 has been set at /22. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP address space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our website at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-ncc-managed-address-space.html Additionally, please note that three "pilot" prefixes will be announced from this /8. The prefixes are: 185.0.0.0/16 185.1.0.0/21 185.1.24.0/24 They all originate in AS12654. The pingable addresses will be: 185.0.0.1 185.1.0.1 185.1.24.1 More information on this activity is available in the document "De-Bogonising New Address Blocks", which can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-351.html Kind regards, Andrea Cima Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAk1Pu9kACgkQXOgsmPkFrjM9FgCgsaT8cFxK0YKTFUFzj41L0PQT N1AAoIgmL1zUY8JjkCSa05xt0t8oppgP =woX5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 8

RE: [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
by Wyatt Mattias Gyllenvarg 01 Mar '11

01 Mar '11

Hi We would like to weigh in here. We feel that it should be RIPEs policy to allocate ONE /32 to any LIR who requests it for 6rd. 6rd is the only way for us to reach all our residential customers. Especially those in Municipal Networks that are very slow to invest in their networks and often do not have the competence and time to impelment IPv6. Also, Cisco has not yet implemented even a small part of the protective mechanisms we rely on in IPv4 to secure our residential networks. Many of these features are required to meet the demands contracted with the customers. We cannot use native IPv6 until Cisco implements these features and we have tested and rolled them out on hundreds of switches. 6rd bypasses all these issues. IF we can get a /32 for that purpuse. -- Med Vänliga Hälsningar - Best regards Mattias Gyllenvarg Network Operations Center Bredband2 ---------------------- end of line ---------------------------

6 8

REMINDER; WAS Re: 2008-08 New Version and Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders)
by Emilio Madaio 25 Feb '11

25 Feb '11

[Apologies for duplicates. Courtesy copy sent to Routing Working Group and RIPE NCC Services Working Group. Please direct feedback to the Address Policy Working Group mailing list.] Dear Colleagues, The new version of RIPE Policy Proposal 2008-08, "Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders", was published on 9 February 2011. The time period for community review ends on 23 February 2011. Some feedback was sent to the Address Policy Working Group mailing list. However, to maintain the discussion, we strongly recommend that you share your ideas and comments and clearly let the community know if you: - Support the implementation of the proposal - Support the general principle of the proposal but would prefer another wording - Support the general principle with some details changed but agree to postpone this discussion until another stage of the policy proposal review. (This is an initial proposal that covers only PA resources. If the community supports extending certification to all resources, then another version of the proposal will be necessary.) - Do not support the proposal (please explain your motivations) You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08/draft Please send an email with your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net by 23 February 2011. Best regards, Emilio Madaio

2 2

2008-08 New Version and Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders)
by Emilio Madaio 24 Feb '11

24 Feb '11

Dear Colleagues, The new version (3.0) of the proposal 2008-08 has been published. The draft document for the proposal and the impact analysis have also been published. The proposal will now undergo a two weeks Review Phase as explained in the previous message available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2011/msg00022… You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08/draft We strongly encourage you to read the draft document text and send comments, ideas, feedback to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 23 February 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

11 17

Query for the RIPE NCC: Size of PIv4 assignments used for access networks
by Martin Millnert 22 Feb '11

22 Feb '11

Hi, I would like to request from the RIPE NCC an answer to the following query: What is the size, in number of addresses, of all PIv4 assignments that are (mostly) used for access networks? Access networks in this context means traditional ISP:s who let humans access the internet. I believe the RIPE NCC keeps documentation over what justifies an assignment, so I imagine it will be possible to come up with some kind of answer to this question even if it is outright impossible to answer based on data in the database. If it is indeed possible to answer the above question with some form of accuracy (+/- 50% or so: order of magnitude most important to get right), I would like to run the question also for PAv4. This is required data to reach some form of informed policy decision/consensus on the PIv4 / PIv6 discrepancy issue which has resurfaced. Regards, Martin

1 0

2010-05 Discussion Period extended until 22 March 2011 (Global Policy for IPv4 Allocation by the IANA Post Exhaustion)
by Emilio Madaio 22 Feb '11

22 Feb '11

Dear Colleagues, The Discussion Period for the global policy proposal 2010-05 has been extended until 22 March 2011. The extension was decided due to the lack of feedback in the Initial Discussion Period. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-05 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
by Mathieu Paonessa 17 Feb '11

17 Feb '11

Hi All, I've been following the previous thread concerning IPv6 PI assignment but I'm running into a special case and need your input. As a LIR, I did send an IPv6 PI request for one of our customers few days ago and the hostmaster did point me to this previous thread saying that we are in the same case and that he may reject this request. The company requesting the IPv6 PI is a hosting company providing software as a service solution for its customers. All the infrastructure (servers, routers...) is owned by them. For security reasons, they chose to isolate each of their customers on a separate VLAN. Their customer don't have administrative access to the servers and just uses the software hosted on them for their CRM, extranet or other corporate applications. Would you consider this to be the exact same case as an ISP assigning an IP to a customer's CPE? I really don't see the point for such a company to become a LIR as they will only use those IPs for them. They also don't need more than a /48 as they are currently having about 50 customers. Regards, Mathieu Paonessa

8 15

IPv6 PI resource question!
by Yasen Simeonov(Neterra NMT) 17 Feb '11

17 Feb '11

Hi, please explain me the following case: There is a small company /ISP/ that wants PI IPs to be independent of upstream providers. The company would not make sub-allocation and will only provide its customers with addresses for Internet access, but these IPs will be the company's infrastructural addresses. The company will use DHCP pool to distribute the addresses to its customers, these will be its own infrastructure addresses and not to the customers /they may receive every time different addresses/. Can that company receive PI IPv6 considering the policy? Thanks, Yasen Simeonov -- Yasen Simeonov Network Management Team Neterra Ltd. Sofia, Bulgaria Phone: +359 2 974 33 11 Fax: +359 2 975 34 36 Mobile: +359 887 477 540 http://www.neterra.net

18 33

Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
by Sander Steffann 15 Feb '11

15 Feb '11

>> Correct. The idea is that one LIR PA block covers lots of customers. It's a matter of scalability... I would love to give every organization it's own block of addresses. If someone finds a way to make that scale please let us know. > > FWIW, LISP is attempting to do just that. I know. I *really* hope it will work and be accepted as a solution. I would love a situation where we don't have to worry about the future routing table size!!! Thanks, Sander

1 0

RIPE 61 Address Policy WG Meeting Draft Minutes
by Emilio Madaio 14 Feb '11

14 Feb '11

Dear Colleagues, The draft minutes of Address Policy Working Group sessions from RIPE 61 are now available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ap/minutes/minutes-from-ripe-61 Best Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2010-06 Proposal Accepted (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
by emadaio＠ripe.net 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2010-06 has been accepted by the RIPE community. The updated policy "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-512 The new policy "Value of the "status:" and "assignment-size:" attributes in inet6num objects for sub-assigned PA space" is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-513 You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-06 Thank you for your input. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE NCC Resource Certification service update
by Alex Band 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

Dear colleagues, It's been one month since I sent the announcement about the RIPE NCC Resource Certification service. I would like to give you an overview of the current status. The facts by numbers: ------------------------------ LIRs who have enabled the service: 219 Number of Route Origin Authorisations they created: 170 Number of prefixes covered by these ROAs: 469 Total IPv4 space covered by ROAs in the RIPE region: 40159 /24s Total IPv6 space covered by ROAs in the RIPE region: 7340035 /48s Unique visitors to ripe.net/certification: 1564 Downloads of the RIPE NCC Validator: 117 So while 219 LIRs have enabled the service, and very diligently created a large number of ROAs to specify their routing policy, unfortunately nobody gave any feedback on any of the mailing lists. It is very important that you let your voice be heard and provide input on policy proposal 2008-08: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08.html Please note that version 3.0 of this proposal will be published very soon. As soon as it is available, I urge you to read it and provide feedback, because the fact that the current service not backed by a policy is not a sustainable state of affairs. Kind regards, Alex Band Product Manager, RIPE NCC http://ripe.net/certification P.S. Here are some links courtesy of LACNIC in case you would like to track the progress: http://www.labs.lacnic.net/~rpki/rpki-monitor/rpki-ta-status.xml http://www.labs.lacnic.net/~rpki/rpki-evolution-report_EN.txt http://www.labs.lacnic.net/~rpki/rpki-heatmaps/latest/ripe-roa-heatmap.png

2 1

Invitation to particpate in a RIPE Task-Force
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

Invitation to join and actively contribute to a RIPE Taskforce on "Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Background: The RIPE Database serves as a data repository for Internet resource assignments and allocations in the RIPE NCC's service region. Among other purposes, it serves as a contact repository for administrative, technical and operational matters regarding IP address ranges and autonomous system numbers. Over time, some mechanisms became available, such as the Incident Response Team (IRT) object and an abuse-mailbox: attribute. Different communities seem to have developed varying expectations and understanding of how the data quality for such contact information can be maintained at a high level, and how and when a report sent to such a contact mechanism will be responded to or otherwise acted upon. Recently, some RIPE Policy Proposals were submitted for consideration and these proposals (2010-08, 2010-09 and 2010-10) were discussed in the Address Policy Working Group, the Anti-Abuse Working Group and briefly in the Database Working Group during the RIPE 61 Meeting in Rome. Deliberations among the responsible working group chairs and senior policy experts suggested that investigation be carried out to get a deeper understanding of the motivations behind the policy proposals, the expected outcomes, the operational and maintenance implications and the role the RIPE Database could perform to support the desired results. It was then suggested to the community and the policy proponents that the most efficient way to progress the issue would be the creation of a RIPE Task Force. There was no objection raised by the members of the community present at the meeting. Call for Participation ----------------------- We invite members of the RIPE community, from the security as well as from the anti-abuse areas, to volunteer and contribute to the proposed task force. Ideally, we would like to bring together the security and anti-abuse communities and the IP resource management and network operations communities to jointly analyse and refine the issue. *Draft* Mandate for the Task Force ---------------------------------- [This draft mandate is for consideration, modification and refinement by the task force] The task force is mandated to: - Agree on a useful name for the task force and, with the help of the RIPE NCC, arrange the logistics and report back to the community about the establishment of the task force - Collect all relevant input that is readily available, in particular policy proposals, information from presentations given recently by the RIPE NCC regarding ideas on the future structure, credibility and quality of data, and the maintenance mechanisms for entries in the RIPE Database - Collect and document comparable mechanisms and proposals in the other RIR Regions (APNIC, AfriNIC, ARIN and LACNIC) - Work with the interested community and the RIPE NCC to understand the problem at hand and the environment in which to develop a proposal. This analysis of the environment should include legal aspects, formal responsibilities for the use of resources on the Internet, well-established operating procedures and relevant operational aspects. - Develop one or more (policy) proposals and/or general recommendations on how collection and maintainace of relevant information in the Registry Database should be organised, including a description of potentially alternative implementations or approaches and the related impact on all parties involved *Draft* Timeline ----------------- The Taskforce should: - Try to collect the core group of participants before end of February 2010 - Start work on the dedicated mailing list as soon as possible, with a view to meet for a face-to-face meeting in advance of RIPE 62 (May 2011) - Report on the task force's progress during RIPE 62 (May 2011) and collect regular input from the RIPE community - Submit a first draft of a recommendation(s) and/or policy proposal(s) before RIPE 63 - Agree on the proposal(s) and agree on the expected implementation deadline Submitting statements of intent to actively participate -------------------------------------------------------- If you would like to participate in the task force, please email the RIPE NCC's Database Manager, Paul Palse, at <ppalse(a)ripe.net>. ________________________________________________________________________ Best regards, Wilfried, circulating this invitation on behalf of the group of the proponents, with kudos to the colleagues at the RIPE NCC for their help with wording!

1 0

FW: [policy-announce] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
by Erik Bais 01 Feb '11

01 Feb '11

Hi, I was wondering what the status is of this policy. I haven't seen any updates or feedback on this and I think that it would make a lot of sense to proceed with this proposal. For those that didn't go to the RIPE 61 meeting (like myself) or missed Nick Hilliard his preso on the topic : http://ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/318-inex-ripe-rome-apwg-minassignments… You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html and the draft document at: http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-492-draft2006-05.html Regards, Erik Bais

1 0