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

Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
by Sander Steffann 18 Jul '11

18 Jul '11

Hello Yannis, > Lately we've been trying to lay out a future-proof IPv6 addressing plan (actually, to revise our initial IPv6 plan from a few years back) and we came to the conclusion that if we were to plan ahead for a few years, we would need an extra IPv6 allocation from RIPE, one more /32 (we already have one). Well, according to ripe-512 we're not eligible for a subsequent allocation yet, since we haven't met the subsequent allocation criteria (HD ratio). > > We'll be offering our commercial dual stack services (broadband, leased-lines VPNs) next year. This means that we'll have 1,2M potential subscribers (/56) just for the retail service. And then there's all the /48s for the VPNs and bigger customers. I'm not saying that all of our customers will migrate to IPv6 at once but we have to plan, don't we? And then there's the growth factor to be considered also... > > For us, this extra /32 will make the difference between an efficient and future-proof addressing plan that will last for many years and one that will have to be revised after 2-3 years (with all the readdressing etc). I thought that one of the key advantages with IPv6 was the fact that we would get rid of readdressing. What I'm trying to say is that ripe-512 is not flexible enough. In the end, should we planning ahead for many years (as per RFC6177) or not? I am adding the address policy working group. Any changes to address policy / ripe-512 should (also) be discussed there. Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

2 1

2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
by Emilio Madaio 15 Jul '11

15 Jul '11

Dear Colleagues, Following the feedback received, a new version of the proposal described in 2006-05 is now published. The draft policy document for the proposal has been published. The Impact Analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and Impact Analysis at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 29 July 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

11 10

2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
by Emilio Madaio 12 Jul '11

12 Jul '11

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2011-02 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 26 July. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

28 72

RE: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
by poty＠iiat.ru 12 Jul '11

12 Jul '11

> What we do need to make up our collective minds is: > > - do we want to see IPv6 deployed? > (some of the comments can be read as "let's not deploy IPv6, because > the IPv4 routing table is already too large!" - and I'm not > convinced > that this line of reasoning is conclusive) My answer - yes. > - do we think that the group of networks that would get IPv6 PI under > the changed policy, but can't get IPv6 PI now is... > > a) large enough that it makes a difference regarding IPv6 > deployment? No. > b) small enough to avoid exploding the routing table? No. > > As for "b)", the numbers given by Alex Le Heux set a certain upper > boundary > for the number of IPv6 PI prefixes to expect - if every user of an IPv4 > PI > routing table slot today (in the RIPE region) will get an IPv6 PI > block, > we're "in the 10.000s" of routes, but not "in the millions". So we > have > some numbers. There is rather uneasy answers to this as soon as times changes. As soon as IPv6 PI would be easy to get and easy to hold - there will be a "market" for it. It would be presented as a gift, got for prestige, "future", "presence in the Internet", "cool practice" and so on. So you cannot rely on digits for rather tough IPv4 PI policy. Such "blocks" will be nothing (in terms of traffic and usefulness of the deployment), but will clog the routing table a lot, inspiring ISPs to constantly change the equipments and delaying full deployment of full-working IPv6. As soon as the first answers (a) is "No" in my opinion, it is preferable for me to postpone the easing of the requirement until IPv6 starts. Regards, Vladislav Potapov

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
by poty＠iiat.ru 12 Jul '11

12 Jul '11

Hello, > > 1. As far as I can see there are no fiscal issues here apart from the > usual issue of more PI's meaning more NCC work meaning more staff > (potentially) and hence more costs. > > > > The potential cost of applying more staff at the RIRs like RIPE NCC > is just one issue. The more important issue is that all the line cards > of the core routers should be replaced if we can not limit the grows of > the forwarding tables (FIB)s. AND IPv4 address space trading allready > might create problems concerning the grows. > > > > A total upgrade beed a couple of billon dollars. Unfortunately even > if this many could be spent, the slow down provoked by the bigger table > size could not be avoided. > > > > Therefore if we want to avoid total collaps or total up-grade and > slow down in the very near future then all the FIBs grows should be > minimised. > > > > Any proposal that might provoke a sudden grows of the FIBs should be > postponed until the technology would evolve enough and allow to handle > fast enough tha definitely larger FIBs. > > > > you still haven't provided any reasons why there should be a sudden > spike and evidence suggesting that there will be. Why? You know - Nigel is a real representative of ISP who knows the things. He said - it'll harm his company's business if the requirement would be removed. And still you do not count it as an argument? > - It's highly unlikely that there will be more IPv6 PI Prefixes than > IPv4 PI Prefixes any time soon in ANY way, that's BY DESIGN of IPv6 > ("one prefix per entity" - usually). If your routers cannot handle > that, you're doing something seriously wrong, or you have a wrong idea > about the whole concept Why someone should ask you about how to do their business? As far as I know - the Internet is on and going without the proposal and not the least role in that duty is due to the people like Nigel. You are asking for not necessary privileges for very small end-user companies and do not hear the "business-oriented" Internet companies. > > - It's highly likely that the IPv4 table WILL grow faster if PI-shops > aren't able to use IPv6 without multihoming because they > will literally buy smaller and smaller IPv4 prefixes and announce > them to stay in business when they grow, so instead of one IPv6 PI > Prefix you will > provoke 10 IPv4 PI Prefixes in some cases - because THERE ALREADY IS > NO MULTIHOMING REQUIREMENT for IPv4 PI No, you haven't done your homework again. There are many restrictions about the length of the IPv4 prefixes. And this is the long time the restrictions will ease. So... > All this proposal does is ease up IPv6 deployment for some entities who > - for whatever stupid reason - rely on PI addresses without being > multi-homed themselves. > And THAT is what the majority should want, more IPv6, soon. IMHO you counterargument yourself here. On one hand you've said that there will be a small number of PI, on another - it will speed up IPv6 deployment. IPv6 will grow without the PI-holders definitely. And this proposal doesn't have ANY relation with that. Regards, Vladislav Potapov

1 0

2011-01 New Draft Document Published (Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA)
by Emilio Madaio 08 Jul '11

08 Jul '11

Dear Colleagues The draft document for the proposal described in 2011-01 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-01 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-01/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 22 July 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer

2 1

Information Regarding AS paths
by Ronak Banka 05 Jul '11

05 Jul '11

Dear Members, I am working on a project and I am stuck at a point where I am in need of AS paths, Is there any way to get AS path for all the AS numbers registered under RIPE RIR ?? -- Ronak Banka Internship student

2 1

2011-02 Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI
by Dan Luedtke 02 Jul '11

02 Jul '11

Dear Community, I can't wait for this change to happen. As I discussed at IPv6 Kongress in Frankfurt, Germany, there are more than a handful of people wanting that change. For example, I have an IPv4 PI network and adopted early to IPv6 using an IPv6 PA network. Never did, nor will I ever understand why multihoming is required for an IPv6 PI network but not for an IPv4 PI network. I support this draft and like to thank everyone who made it happen. This is an important step awaited by me and many others, even if the community decides not to do it. best regards, Dan Luedtke

2 1

IETF working group on renumbering in IPv6
by Shane Kerr 24 Jun '11

24 Jun '11

All, There is some idea to work on the renumbering problem in IPv6. This is certainly of interest to IPv6 folks, but I am including the address policy folks as this may ultimately have impact there. Cheers, -- Shane

2 1

Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)
by Sander Steffann 02 Jun '11

02 Jun '11

Hello WG, I asked the RIPE NCC to get legal counsel on the possibilities of a court ordering the RIPE NCC to revoke or confiscate RPKI certificates. Here is the full answer we received: ========== The RIPE NCC is an association under Dutch law and therefore subject to the Dutch legislation. RIPE NCC has consulted several external lawyers, and has obtained an analysis of the legal situation based on current, existing Dutch legislation. This analysis takes into account Dutch Criminal, Civil and Administrative law. Certificates are directly linked to the registration of the Internet number resources. There is no specific Dutch legislation that can be used to order the deregistration of Internet number resources or change the registration details of Internet number resources. Nor is there any legislation that applies to the revocation of certificates over Internet number resources. In the absence of such legislation, a court cannot order the revocation of certificates. It is the RIPE NCC’s view, based on this analysis, that the RIPE NCC cannot be ordered to revoke resource certificates. ========== Of course laws can change, but the advice above may address some of the concerns raised about the RPKI infrastructure. Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

24 84