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

2011-02 Review Period extended until 23 August 2011 (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
by Emilio Madaio 09 Aug '11

09 Aug '11

Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposed change to RIPE Document has been extended until 23 August 2011. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 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

Discussion standards
by Sander Steffann 08 Aug '11

08 Aug '11

Hello working group, Declaration of hats: speaking on behalf of the chairs of this working group: Gert Döring and myself. We have noticed that in the last months a lot of messages about policy proposals contain assumptions, feelings and expectations. While these can be very important in a discussion it is very hard to discuss such statements. Too much of this and it can make policy development nearly impossible. If we want to make good decisions and work towards consensus we need to raise our standards a bit. I want to ask everybody here to add supporting facts, numbers, statistics or other data wherever possible. That doesn't mean that nobody should express their doubts or opinions! All input is still welcome. But please be aware that when trying to judge if consensus has been reached we might give less weight to input that has no data backing it. Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG Co-chair

1 0

2006-05 Last Call for Comments (PI Assignment Size)
by Emilio Madaio 08 Aug '11

08 Aug '11

Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2006-05 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 5 September 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] the post-mortem on 2008-08
by Milton L Mueller 28 Jul '11

28 Jul '11

Jim: > -----Original Message----- > We're in a paradox where the > community has killed a policy on address certification while > simultaneously authorising the NCC to develop such a system. [snip] > There now needs to be a vote by the NCC membership to > take a decision which will normalise that situation. And unlike RIPE's > PDP, the AGM shouldn't take 3 years to decide. If the NCC membership votes to continue developing the system, how exactly does the situation get "normalized?" A vote to continue development of a system that has been rejected in the policy process continues the paradox, does it not? Only a negative vote would normalize. And I don't get the impression that you would vote no, or urge others to vote no. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org

2 1

Re: 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
by Josh Nertrino 24 Jul '11

24 Jul '11

I fully support this proposal. Finally some movement..... (this draft was submitted back in 2006!) Ps. ARIN already has this for years !!!

1 0

RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
by Ivan Pepelnjak 22 Jul '11

22 Jul '11

Let me try to understand: (A) We don't disagree that he might actually deserve more than /32 (B) According to my understanding of previous discussions I had on this topic, RIPE might actually have already reserved extra space for his future needs (C) According to the current rules he can't get another /32 for a total of /31 without using most of the current /32 (and hoping his next /32 will be adjacent) (D) Someone is seriously suggesting he returns the current /32 and asks for a brand new /31 which he will likely get. Was someone reading too much Kafka or The Good Soldier Švejk lately? Ivan > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Zorz @ Go6.si [mailto:jan@go6.si] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 5:13 PM > To: Ivan Pepelnjak; 'Sander Steffann'; 'Yannis Nikolopoulos' > Subject: RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues) > > Going to production it was said :) > > I did a long discussion with Alex Le Heux (RIPE IPRA) about the same > issue, his advice was that. > > Jan > > Ivan Pepelnjak <ipepelnjak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >Extremely helpful advice from the ops perspective. > > > >> Trade in your /32 and get something bigger under initial alloc > >> conditions... :) > > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

20 44

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