February 2012 - address-policy-wg

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Gleb Katenin 29 Feb '12

29 Feb '12

Hi, Just wanted to say a few words in support of the proposal 2011-04. For companies like ours it makes perfect sense due to the fact that they often have multiple separate networks run by different people (user-facing, management, corporate and so on). ARIN has a policy to meet requirements of multiple discrete networks (https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six_11) while RIPE has no provision for that. In fact, RIPE policy proposal 2011-04 was already offered to us as a solution for problem Google Corp network is currently facing. We have aggressive plans to roll out IPv6 in EMEA offices but our allocation request was turned down (see email below) due to the fact that initial /32 has been already allocated to us. In reality, however, it was allocated to another entity withing company which is not willing to share. We as an organization currently see the policy proposal 2011-04 as a way out and would very much like to support it. Please consider this as a "yes" vote. Thank you! Gleb > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:39 PM, RIPE NCC Staff <lir-help(a)ripe.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Gleb, >> >> Thank you for your email. >> >> The policies in the RIPE region differ from the APNIC ones, so what you >> might >> have received there is not per se what you will receive here. :) >> >> The IPv6 policy procures one initial IPv6 allocation per LIR to deploy >> IPv6 >> on the network. >> >> An LIR can request a subsequent allocation when they have reached an >> HD-ratio >> value of 0.94. >> >> <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-523#subsequent_allocation> >> >> There is no support in the policy at the moment for multiple /32 >> allocations >> for administrative ease. >> >> The options you do have are as follows: >> >> -support the current policy proposal 2011-04 and then get a larger >> allocation >> for the ie.google registry when the proposal is implemented: >> >> <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04> >> >> -split the current /32 allocation into two different prefixes. This is >> allowed >> by the current policy, after the community decided to remove the >> limitations >> that the allocation had to be announced as one single prefix. >> >> You can add several maintainers to the current /32 allocation using the >> LIR portal Object Editor: >> >> <https://lirportal.ripe.net/home/> >> >> Please let me know if you have any further questions about the IPv6 policy >> and what your current options are. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Gerardo Viviers >> RIPE NCC >> Registration Services >> >> >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:47:19 +0100, Gleb Katenin wrote: >> > Dear Henriette, >> > >> > Thanks for your detailed answer! The allocation you've mentioned >> > belongs to Google user-facing production network (AS15169) and is >> > protected by MNT-GOOG-PROD object. What we are currently requesting >> > is /32 allocation for internal corporate network (AS41264), our >> > objects are protected by MNT-GOOG-CORP. For instance, by APNIC we have >> > following allocations: >> > >> > - 2404:6800::/32 for Prod network >> > - 2401:fa00::/32 for Corp network >> > >> > Google Prod and Corp networks are logically and physically >> > separate and maintained by different people. For this reason we keep >> > network allocations separate as well. Please kindly advise how >> > to proceed with our RIPE request further. >> > > > -- > Best regards, > > Gleb Katenin > Network Engineer > Tel. +41 44 668-1072 > > Google Switzerland GmbH > Brandschenkestrasse 110, 8002 Zurich > Registration No. CH-020.4.028.116-1 >

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Michael Adams 27 Feb '12

27 Feb '12

Hi all. Am 14.02.2012 15:42, schrieb Emilio Madaio: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 13 March 2012. I'm 100% happy with the draft but one thing circles in my mind. 5.1.2 says it's possible to qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 based on the number of existing users. Shouldn't this be possible for existing IPv6 space holders too? 5.7 doesn't mention this. Just a thought... Michael -- Michael Adams Tel: +49 221 2222 657 Network Engineering & Design Fax: +49 221 2222 7657 NetCologne Geschäftsführer Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH Dr. Hans Konle (Sprecher) Am Coloneum 9 Dipl.-Ing. Karl-Heinz Zankel 50829 Köln HRB 25580, Amtsgericht Köln

6 18

(draft) Minutes from RIPE 63
by Gert Doering 27 Feb '12

27 Feb '12

Hi APWG, the draft minutes from RIPE 63 are now online: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ap/minutes/minutes-from-ripe-63 please let us know if something is missing or not correct. The minutes have been reviewed, but they are quite long and detailed, and mistakes happen. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

Multihomed demand for ISP
by Richard Krogh (RKG) 23 Feb '12

23 Feb '12

Hi. Not shure if I am writing in the correct forum, but here goes: My company is recognized as an ISP, caused by our lease/reservation of RIPE based IP addresses. Question: Is it a ripe-demand that ISPs should have multihomed lines to their equipment or is single line OK? (beware that I am not talking of performance or the company's safety, only about what demands RIPE require). Thanks in advance. Richard Krogh

2 2

Policy proposal 2011-02: "Removal of Multihomed Requirement for IPv6 PI" Implemented
by Kjell Leknes 22 Feb '12

22 Feb '12

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-02, "Removal of Multihomed Requirement for IPv6 PI", has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now ready to accept requests for IPv6 PI assignments without multihoming being a requirement. The full proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 The revised version of the IPv6 policy was published on 23 January 2012: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545 The new request form template for IPv6 PI assignments can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-546/ The new supporting notes can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-547/ Kind regards --- Kjell Leknes RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Draft Document will be produced (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by chrish＠consol.net 21 Feb '12

21 Feb '12

Hi! On 02/17/2012 03:05 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > With the agreement of the Address Policy WG Chairs, the proposer > decided to move the proposal to the Review Phase. The RIPE NCC will Just to avoid any oversight: it is version 2 which is moved to the review phase, which lacks consensus. Regards, Chris

2 1

2011-05 Draft Document will be produced (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Emilio Madaio 17 Feb '12

17 Feb '12

Dear Colleagues, The discussion period for the proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has ended. With the agreement of the Address Policy WG Chairs, the proposer decided to move the proposal to the Review Phase. The RIPE NCC will also conduct and publish an impact analysis about the proposal, as per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE". This documentation will now be prepared for review. We will publish the documents shortly and we will make an announcement. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Emilio Madaio 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation", has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 13 March 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

New Article on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Address Space Growth per Country
by Mirjam Kuehne 06 Feb '12

06 Feb '12

Dear colleagues, Please see a new article by Emile Aben on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Address Space Growth per Country https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ipv4-address-space-growth-per-count… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

2011-04 Draft Document will be produced (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Emilio Madaio 03 Feb '12

03 Feb '12

Dear Colleagues, The discussion period for the proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-545 has ended. With the agreement of the Address Policy WG Chairs, the proposers decided to move the proposal to the Review Phase as per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE". A draft document will now be prepared for review. We will publish the document shortly and we will make an announcement. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2011 IPv4 Allocation Statistics on RIPE Labs
by Mirjam Kuehne 03 Feb '12

03 Feb '12

[apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, We just published some interesting IPv4 allocation statistics on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv4-allocation-statistics-2011 Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0