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

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

Regarding fragmentation and aggregation of IPv4 address space
by Ronak Banka 01 Jun '11

01 Jun '11

Respected Team members, Myself Ronak banka currently doing my internship at NAv6, USM Malaysia under the supervision of Dr. Raja Kumar. I am presently conducting a Research on estimating the fragmentation and aggregation of IPv6 address space by comparing it with fragmentation and aggregation of IPv4 address space under RIPE, so I was in search of data regarding reasons for fragmentation of the address space and % contribution of those different reasons to fragmentation. If you could help me in this matter by providing any important details I would be thankful to you. Waiting for your reply in anticipation. -- Ronak Banka Internship student National Advance IPv6 Centre (NAv6) USM Malaysia contact: +60143064063

1 0

Cosmetic Surgery Project: Extended Review period on the new draft document for IPv6 Address Policy
by Emilio Madaio 31 May '11

31 May '11

Dear colleagues, At RIPE 59 in Lisbon in October 2009, the RIPE NCC announced that it would undertake a project to make various RIPE policy documents easier to understand without changing the meaning of the text. As already announced, the latest draft document produced according to the project is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/updated-documents/ This is the merger of the three policy documents: -ripe-512 "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" -ripe-451 "IPv6 Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points" -ripe-233 "IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers in the RIPE Region" The announcement of the publication of this new draft is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2011/msg00243… The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs decided to extend the review period until 13 June 2011 to allow the community more time to give their feedback. We encourage you to read this merged version and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net by 13 June 2011. Best Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

3 2

2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
by Emilio Madaio 27 May '11

27 May '11

Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-509, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-03/ We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 17 June 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

19 40

RE: [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR
by poty＠iiat.ru 23 May '11

23 May '11

>> And why wouldn't the Internet work with 600,000 prefixes in the DFZ? > > Now all of a sudden for instance Cisco 7600 3CXL isn't enough to old a full table (at around 750k). > > Also, IPv6 uses twice the TCAM resources as IPv4... so, basically what you are saying is that you know that your routers need an upgrade in 5 years and you don't want to pay for an upgrade or you can't figure out a business plan which covers the costs for that? But you are telling small ISPs/NCOs/"hobbyusers"/whatever THEY don't get their business plan right if they don't can afford paying $$$ for PI space or rather would prefer to pay other bills with the money? WTF?! ------ No, the problem that the small ISPs you are speaking about will have to spend that money to swallow such routing table. And it is not $2000, "slightly" more...

10 14