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

2008-05 Review Period extended until 11 May 2009 (Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM)
by Ingrid Wijte 27 Apr '09

27 Apr '09

PDP Number: 2008-05 Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2008-05 has been revised based on the community feedback. We have published the new version (version 4.0) today. As a result a new Review Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-05.html and the draft RIPE Documents at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-449-draft2008-05-v4.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-466-draft2008-05.html We encourage you to read the revised proposal and the draft documents, and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 May 2008. Regards, Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2009-02 Discussion Period extended until 21 May 2009 (Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC)
by Ingrid Wijte 23 Apr '09

23 Apr '09

PDP Number: 2009-02 Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2009-02 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/2009-02.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 21 May 2009. Regards, Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

3 2

(Draft) Agenda for RIPE 58
by Gert Doering 22 Apr '09

22 Apr '09

Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Amsterdam in the following 2.5 time slots: Wednesday, May 6, 09:45 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 6, 11:00 - 12:30 Thursday, May 7, 09:00 - 10:30 The exact time lines depend a bit on how much discussion is going on, so we might move items one time slot "up" or "down". If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or of we need to change anything, please let us know. Due to the "RIPE 20 years" celebration on Thursday, we didn't get as much time as I had hoped for, so some of the discussions might have to be cut short and redirected to the mailing list. Sorry for that. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:45-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) Update on the implementation of 2007-01 ** will be covered in the NCC Services WG ** B. Current Policy Topics - Filiz Yilmaz [25-30 min] - overview over concluded protocols (2006-01 [IPv6 PI], 2007-05 [ULA-Central], 2007-08 [Transfers], 2008-09 [ASPLAIN format]) - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) C. ASN 32-bit policy - Experiences and Review presentation by Daniel Karrenberg, discussion [10+10 min] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- E. New Proposals since RIPE 57 overview about what's coming [5-10 min] F. Discussion of open policy proposals, grouped by similarity of topic --- PI and special-case address space related --- 2006-05 PI Assignment Size [0 min] (will be mentioned in the "overview" and will not be discussed again) 2008-05 Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM [15 min] (5-minute presentation about v3 and issues addressed, Q&A, discussion) 2009-02 Internet Resource Assignment to the RIPE NCC (Remco) [10 min] (3-minute presentation about v2, Q&A, discussion) 2009-05 Multiple IPv6 Allocations for LIRs [15 min] --- end of IPv4 session (1) --- 2009-03 IPv4 Run-Out Fairly Proposal (Daniel Karrenberg) [25 min] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, 09:00-11:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- end of IPv4 session (2) --- 2009-01 Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to [15-20 min] Regional Internet Registries (see also http://www.apnic.net/policy/discussions/prop-069-v002.txt) Presentation by Axel Pawlik from the RIPE NCC. 2008-06 Phil Smith (1) - Usage of final /8 [5 min] (see also http://www.apnic.net/policy/discussions/prop-062-v002.txt) 2009-04 IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment [5 min] (Alain Bidron) joint discussion about both proposals, because both [30 min] affect usage of the last /8 -> the WG needs to decide how to proceed with these two colliding proposals. 2008-07 Phil Smith (2) - Efficient use of historical IPv4 res. [15-20 min] (see also http://www.apnic.net/policy/discussions/prop-066-v004.txt) --- cross-WG material --- 2008-08 Initial Certification Policy for PA Space Holders [0 min] CA-TF, presentation by Nigel Titley, + Discussion (this will also be discussed in the NCC services WG, just included in the list of "open proposals" for completeness) Y. Open Policy Hour "The Open Policy Hour (OPH) is a showcase for your policy ideas. If you have a policy proposal you'd like to debut, prior to formally submitting it, here is your opportunity." (Idea from ARIN policy meeting) Z. AOB -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 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

2006-01 Proposal Accepted (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
by Filiz Yilmaz 22 Apr '09

22 Apr '09

PDP Number: 2006-01 Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2006-01, "Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations" has been accepted by the RIPE community. The related RIPE policy document is now updated, published and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-466.html or http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html The proposal is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html The RIPE NCC will implement this new policy within one month. Thank you for your input. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

Draft Proposal: Assignment of an IPv4 /24 for documentation purposes
by Peter Koch 21 Apr '09

21 Apr '09

Dear WG, this is a rough draft policy proposal. I'd appreciate some feedback before I decide whether to invoke the formal process. Summary: The RIPE NCC is asked to assign an IPv4 /24 for documentation purposes. Background: In example configurations, RFCs, training material and other documentation it is necessary from time to time to include IP addresses, domain names or even phone numbers as examples. These resources should meet all syntactical requirements (e.g., be "real" IP addresses), but should not interfere with assignments or registrations by innocent third parties. See RFC 4085 (BCP 105) for what could happen in the worst case. For the DNS, RFC 2606 (BCP 32) has set aside several top level and second level domain names and the network 192.0.2/24 has been dedicated for documentation and test purposes by the IANA in the past (see RFC 3330). RFC 3849 ("IPv6 Address Prefix Reserved for Documentation") documents APNIC's assignment of 2001:DB8::/32 for the sole use in example texts. Motivation: During recent discussion within the IETF, but also on other occasions in the past, it appeared that a single /24 is often not enough to support instructive examples. This may include more complex network designs, or the use of addresses for DNS name servers, where good practice (see RFC 2182, BCP 16) suggests topological diversity. Sometimes, address space from RFC 1918 (BCP 5) is used in addition to or as a replacement for 192.0.2/24, but this is also a source of confusion due to the special nature of the "private address space". It also conflicts with the goal to avoid any collision with addresses used in real life, even if the burden would be spread across many users of RFC 1918 address space. Request: The RIPE NCC is asked to assign and dedicate a /24 that is reasonable visually distinct from 192.0.2/24 for documentation only purposes. The network is not to be used and the prefix is never expected to be announced in any BGP session (cf. 3849). The new assignment is not intended to serve as a supplement to RFC 1918 address space. It is intentionally left open here whether similar considerations would suggest an additional assignment in v6 space, as well. The pros should be obvious to anyone who ever had to write documentation or example configurations, but there are also some cons: o another /24 is a waste of space o just a /24 won't be enough o this creates yet another bogon o any invest in IPv4 is a waste of resources, anyway o nobody knew 192.0.2/24 in the first place, so why add to the confusion? o this doesn't need a policy proposal, but could be dealt with through a specially "sponsored" PI assignment A special action seems cleaner to me than some random PI assignment, but this is why I'd like to ask the WG for feedback. Also, if anyone is aware of other address space similar to 192.0.2/24, I'd appreciate a pointer. Best regards, Peter

7 9

do you believe ? the time is near.
by Frederic 21 Apr '09

21 Apr '09

hi, http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html it is time to permit IPV6-PI assignement. That the way to permit to IPV6 to be alive in the entire network. Awaiting Decision from WG Chairs : Please give you décision. we need, we want ask our Ipv6-PI ! Bst regards. F.

1 0

New Document available: RIPE-465
by RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service 20 Apr '09

20 Apr '09

Dear Colleagues, The mention of 0.8 as the HD ratio (in two occurrences) in ripe-450 is an error. In RIPE, the HD ratio for IPv6 has been set at 0.94 since November 2007 and was documented correctly in the previous IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (ripe-421). We have corrected the error and published an updated document (ripe-465) that you can find at: http://test-www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-465.html We apologise for any confusion this may have caused and will put in place additional checks to prevent similar errors in the future Kind Regards Adrian Bedford Web Services Team Leader RIPE NCC and Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 2

2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
by Ingrid Wijte 18 Apr '09

18 Apr '09

PDP Number: 2009-05 Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs 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/2009-05.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 12 May 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Assistant Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

20 73

RE: Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs
by Stream Service 15 Apr '09

15 Apr '09

Hello, (ab)using IPv6 PI is also not a good solution for it I guess. How should we make it possible? With kind regards, Mark Scholten -----Original Message----- From: Andy Davidson [mailto:andy.davidson@netsumo.com] Sent: woensdag 15 april 2009 13:54 To: Stream Service Subject: Re: Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs On 15 Apr 2009, at 12:18, Stream Service wrote: > It should be aggegatable for as far as the LIR wants. It should also > be > possible to split it up to /48's without a problem (for example is 1 > LIR has > multiple ASN's or when some address space should only be available via > peering). It is possible with IPv4 for as far as I know, why don't > make it > possible with IPv6? Hi, Mark Thank you for your email. It is possible with IPv6. The question is, do we really want the v6 table to be as fragmented as the v4 one ? Of course we do not. We want fast convergence in the default free zone. We wont get this if we don't look after the policies which govern assignment though. Andy -- Regards, Andy Davidson, NetSumo Limited D: +44 (0) 20 7993 1702 S: +44 (0) 20 7993 1700 E: andy.davidson(a)netsumo.com

1 0

Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"
by Daniel Karrenberg 15 Apr '09

15 Apr '09

Dear colleagues, attached you will find a policy proposal we call "Run Out Fairly". It is based on a discussion instigated by your's truly during the open policy hour at the latest RIPE meeting. This is a proposal to gradually reduce the allocation and assignment periods in step with the expected life time of the IPv4 unallocated pool in order to address the perception of unfairness once the pool has run out. The proposal is not intended to stretch the lifetime of the unallocated pool. The proposal is independent of other proposals to reserve address space for transition purposes and/or new entrants. It can be implemented independently of these. We thank Filiz Yilmaz for her help, invite discussion of this proposal and look forward to high quality comments. For the authors Daniel Karrenberg PS: Can we refer to this proposal by name and not by number? ;-)

11 17