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

2009-02 Last Call for Comments (Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC)
by Ingrid Wijte 16 Jun '09

16 Jun '09

PDP Number: 2009-02 Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2009-02 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-02.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 14 July 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

AW: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08
by Marcus.Gerdon 09 Jun '09

09 Jun '09

I support this proposal as is. Where's the reason for treating LIR's different than end users in regards to 'validity of the assignment' and return of a resource? If routing reasons are the main criteria for assignment existing policies already define the return of the resource as soon as the reasons become invalid. Or did I miss something? kind regards, Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon(a)versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Geschäftsführer: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Von: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Stream Service Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Juni 2009 02:45 An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08 Because of point 2 I don't support this proposal, if/when this point is removed I support this proposal. Some people don't want that RIPE is saying anything about routing policy, so it should also not look for this for returning IPv6/IPv4 IP assignments if you ask me. From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of David Freedman Sent: maandag 8 juni 2009 22:05 To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08 Can I just ask for clarification of the following: "the LIR must demonstrate the unique routing requirements for the PI assignment." and "The LIR must return the IPv6 PI assignment within a period of six months should the unique routing requirements for the PI assignment no longer be met." 1. does this mean that the following question from RIPE-468 is no longer valid for routing? "% Is the End User requesting extra address space for routing and/or % administrative reasons? (Yes/No)" 2. Will this include the space not being routed at all? or does this require that the space be routed? Regards, Dave. ------------------------------------------------ David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Limited http://www.clara.net -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net on behalf of Frederic Sent: Mon 6/8/2009 20:07 To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08 hi, we support this proposal. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-08.html bst regards. Frederic

1 0

2009-08
by Frederic 09 Jun '09

09 Jun '09

hi, we support this proposal. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-08.html bst regards. Frederic

4 3

RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
by Marcus.Gerdon 08 Jun '09

08 Jun '09

Dear colleagues, I can't give support to this proposal as it is. Some of you have already argumented against the resulting de-aggregation and therefore polution of the (IPv6) routing table to be expected. The mindful use of 'Operators Choice' you can all see when browsing the IPv4 table. There *will* be operators de-aggregating an allocation just because they need one - i.e. - /40 to be traversing a defined link. Allowing allocations to be routed at operators liking (which is meant by 'Operators Choice' of course) without violating any policy will supposedly never again be confined once it has been started. Before starting to fire back arguments like 'filtering bcp is at minimum allocation size', 'RIPE doesn't guarantee routing/reachability' etc. think about how to get out of this later on. An example: tell a customer, possibly one of the larger ones you have, that the homemade isp at the other end of the world is polluting the global routing tables and therefore won't receive the customers emails as you are filtering *valid* advertisements (which would be the result after the policy change) based on a recommendation. This doesn't work out. Sooner or later anybody will somehow be forced to accept any de-aggregated trash. IPv6 had been designed for hierarchical addressing. I understand there is need for de-aggregation to support traffic engineering, load-sharing, localized routing or alike. I remember (darkly, so pls don't take me by word) a discussion along the IPv6 PI years (?) regarding geological allocation of address space. So why do we now want to go into the opposite direction? I'm not quite happy having IPv4 and IPv6 being compared in regards to policies and assignment of topics onto wg's. IPv6 has an inherent combination of address assignment/allocation and routing. Doing one without the other in mind will result in IPv4 world again. That said, I come to the part of 'as it is' I stated to the beginning. I suggest to modify the routing requirements to support some level of de-aggregation instead of removing them completely. Why not change b) advertise the allocation that they will receive as a single prefix if the prefix is to be used on the Internet; into something like (roughly worded for short) b) advertise the allocation in whole, and if needed additional overlapping more-specifics up to an 8th the allocations size at most I think this might help in limiting the number of de-aggregated routes within the tables while allowing for a still more stringent filtering based on the 'minimum allocation size'/8. In cases where regional routing or load-sharing across multiple links to the same peer is required special arrangements can always be made I think (using no-export or alike). At least the requirement of advertising the aggregated allocation would maintain reachability across min-alloc-size filters and allow for serious arguments - aka finger-pointing - in regards to customer discussions when traffic isn't able to traverse the aggregate route. regards, Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon(a)versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Geschäftsführer: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Jeroen Massar > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Mai 2009 18:37 > An: Frederic > Cc: alain.bidron(a)orange-ftgroup.com; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] > 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements > from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) > > Frederic wrote: > > we do not support this proposal and we would garant routing for min > > ipv6-PI block assignement. > > RIPE NCC cannot guarantee anything regarding routing. You need to > communicate with the rest of the parties where you want your prefix to > go if they want to accept it or not. > > Please see: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html#routability > (see section 4.2. Routability Not Guaranteed in RIPE-466) > As mentioned in the text of the proposal. > > > Clearly there is a lot of confusion about this, thus, as I > mentioned in > my other mail, the text can be amended by removing those > statements, but > then there should definitely be a clear link to the above document. > > Greets, > Jeroen > >

1 0

please remove ripe-staff@telecomitalia.it from the whois records
by Jérôme Bouat 08 Jun '09

08 Jun '09

Hello, I'm trying to find the right contact for network issues. Querying the RIPE whois database with the below command: --- whois -h whois.ripe.net 87.14.213.17 --- provides the below result: --- (...) e-mail: ripe-staff(a)telecomitalia.it (...) --- However it appears that the "ripe-staff" mail account is undefined on the "telecomitalia.it" mail server. This means that my Spam complaints never reach the network admin team. Could you please update the whois database (RIPE) by removing the invalid "ripe-staff(a)telecomitalia.it" email address and also provide a replacement ? Thanks for your help. Regards.

3 3

please remove invalid abuse contacts
by Jérôme Bouat 04 Jun '09

04 Jun '09

Hello, Your Whois database is providing "jhli_jl(a)mail.jl.cn" abuse contact email for IP 222.160.20.110. However, the mailbox is full (see attached error message). Please ensure each abuse complaint is processed by each network admin or remove useless contacts. Sometimes the user account or the domain name is invalid in the provided email. Thanks for you help. Regards.

6 10

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

2008-07 Discussion Period extended until 1 July 2009 (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
by Ingrid Wijte 03 Jun '09

03 Jun '09

PDP Number: 2008-07 Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2008-07 has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 2) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-07.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 1 July 2009. Regards, Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

3 2

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 poty＠iiat.ru 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

As already mentioned - to the shared network - the Internet. Opposing the internal network - how big and ugly it might be! > -----Original Message----- > From: bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com > [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com] > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 5:12 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: michael.dillon(a)bt.com; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 04:24:52PM +0400, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > > > > > > Is Network X on the Internet? Is the Radianz network on the > > > Internet? > > There is a simple answer. If your address block is interacting with > at > > least one announced prefix, then you should have globally unique > > addresses, otherwise - not. > > > > announced to whom? > > --bill

2 1