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

IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
by Mathieu Paonessa 17 Feb '11

17 Feb '11

Hi All, I've been following the previous thread concerning IPv6 PI assignment but I'm running into a special case and need your input. As a LIR, I did send an IPv6 PI request for one of our customers few days ago and the hostmaster did point me to this previous thread saying that we are in the same case and that he may reject this request. The company requesting the IPv6 PI is a hosting company providing software as a service solution for its customers. All the infrastructure (servers, routers...) is owned by them. For security reasons, they chose to isolate each of their customers on a separate VLAN. Their customer don't have administrative access to the servers and just uses the software hosted on them for their CRM, extranet or other corporate applications. Would you consider this to be the exact same case as an ISP assigning an IP to a customer's CPE? I really don't see the point for such a company to become a LIR as they will only use those IPs for them. They also don't need more than a /48 as they are currently having about 50 customers. Regards, Mathieu Paonessa

8 15

IPv6 PI resource question!
by Yasen Simeonov(Neterra NMT) 17 Feb '11

17 Feb '11

Hi, please explain me the following case: There is a small company /ISP/ that wants PI IPs to be independent of upstream providers. The company would not make sub-allocation and will only provide its customers with addresses for Internet access, but these IPs will be the company's infrastructural addresses. The company will use DHCP pool to distribute the addresses to its customers, these will be its own infrastructure addresses and not to the customers /they may receive every time different addresses/. Can that company receive PI IPv6 considering the policy? Thanks, Yasen Simeonov -- Yasen Simeonov Network Management Team Neterra Ltd. Sofia, Bulgaria Phone: +359 2 974 33 11 Fax: +359 2 975 34 36 Mobile: +359 887 477 540 http://www.neterra.net

18 33

Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
by Sander Steffann 15 Feb '11

15 Feb '11

>> Correct. The idea is that one LIR PA block covers lots of customers. It's a matter of scalability... I would love to give every organization it's own block of addresses. If someone finds a way to make that scale please let us know. > > FWIW, LISP is attempting to do just that. I know. I *really* hope it will work and be accepted as a solution. I would love a situation where we don't have to worry about the future routing table size!!! Thanks, Sander

1 0

RIPE 61 Address Policy WG Meeting Draft Minutes
by Emilio Madaio 14 Feb '11

14 Feb '11

Dear Colleagues, The draft minutes of Address Policy Working Group sessions from RIPE 61 are now available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ap/minutes/minutes-from-ripe-61 Best Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2010-06 Proposal Accepted (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
by emadaio＠ripe.net 10 Feb '11

10 Feb '11

Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2010-06 has been accepted by the RIPE community. The updated policy "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-512 The new policy "Value of the "status:" and "assignment-size:" attributes in inet6num objects for sub-assigned PA space" is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-513 You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-06 Thank you for your input. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE NCC Resource Certification service update
by Alex Band 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

Dear colleagues, It's been one month since I sent the announcement about the RIPE NCC Resource Certification service. I would like to give you an overview of the current status. The facts by numbers: ------------------------------ LIRs who have enabled the service: 219 Number of Route Origin Authorisations they created: 170 Number of prefixes covered by these ROAs: 469 Total IPv4 space covered by ROAs in the RIPE region: 40159 /24s Total IPv6 space covered by ROAs in the RIPE region: 7340035 /48s Unique visitors to ripe.net/certification: 1564 Downloads of the RIPE NCC Validator: 117 So while 219 LIRs have enabled the service, and very diligently created a large number of ROAs to specify their routing policy, unfortunately nobody gave any feedback on any of the mailing lists. It is very important that you let your voice be heard and provide input on policy proposal 2008-08: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08.html Please note that version 3.0 of this proposal will be published very soon. As soon as it is available, I urge you to read it and provide feedback, because the fact that the current service not backed by a policy is not a sustainable state of affairs. Kind regards, Alex Band Product Manager, RIPE NCC http://ripe.net/certification P.S. Here are some links courtesy of LACNIC in case you would like to track the progress: http://www.labs.lacnic.net/~rpki/rpki-monitor/rpki-ta-status.xml http://www.labs.lacnic.net/~rpki/rpki-evolution-report_EN.txt http://www.labs.lacnic.net/~rpki/rpki-heatmaps/latest/ripe-roa-heatmap.png

2 1

Invitation to particpate in a RIPE Task-Force
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

Invitation to join and actively contribute to a RIPE Taskforce on "Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Background: The RIPE Database serves as a data repository for Internet resource assignments and allocations in the RIPE NCC's service region. Among other purposes, it serves as a contact repository for administrative, technical and operational matters regarding IP address ranges and autonomous system numbers. Over time, some mechanisms became available, such as the Incident Response Team (IRT) object and an abuse-mailbox: attribute. Different communities seem to have developed varying expectations and understanding of how the data quality for such contact information can be maintained at a high level, and how and when a report sent to such a contact mechanism will be responded to or otherwise acted upon. Recently, some RIPE Policy Proposals were submitted for consideration and these proposals (2010-08, 2010-09 and 2010-10) were discussed in the Address Policy Working Group, the Anti-Abuse Working Group and briefly in the Database Working Group during the RIPE 61 Meeting in Rome. Deliberations among the responsible working group chairs and senior policy experts suggested that investigation be carried out to get a deeper understanding of the motivations behind the policy proposals, the expected outcomes, the operational and maintenance implications and the role the RIPE Database could perform to support the desired results. It was then suggested to the community and the policy proponents that the most efficient way to progress the issue would be the creation of a RIPE Task Force. There was no objection raised by the members of the community present at the meeting. Call for Participation ----------------------- We invite members of the RIPE community, from the security as well as from the anti-abuse areas, to volunteer and contribute to the proposed task force. Ideally, we would like to bring together the security and anti-abuse communities and the IP resource management and network operations communities to jointly analyse and refine the issue. *Draft* Mandate for the Task Force ---------------------------------- [This draft mandate is for consideration, modification and refinement by the task force] The task force is mandated to: - Agree on a useful name for the task force and, with the help of the RIPE NCC, arrange the logistics and report back to the community about the establishment of the task force - Collect all relevant input that is readily available, in particular policy proposals, information from presentations given recently by the RIPE NCC regarding ideas on the future structure, credibility and quality of data, and the maintenance mechanisms for entries in the RIPE Database - Collect and document comparable mechanisms and proposals in the other RIR Regions (APNIC, AfriNIC, ARIN and LACNIC) - Work with the interested community and the RIPE NCC to understand the problem at hand and the environment in which to develop a proposal. This analysis of the environment should include legal aspects, formal responsibilities for the use of resources on the Internet, well-established operating procedures and relevant operational aspects. - Develop one or more (policy) proposals and/or general recommendations on how collection and maintainace of relevant information in the Registry Database should be organised, including a description of potentially alternative implementations or approaches and the related impact on all parties involved *Draft* Timeline ----------------- The Taskforce should: - Try to collect the core group of participants before end of February 2010 - Start work on the dedicated mailing list as soon as possible, with a view to meet for a face-to-face meeting in advance of RIPE 62 (May 2011) - Report on the task force's progress during RIPE 62 (May 2011) and collect regular input from the RIPE community - Submit a first draft of a recommendation(s) and/or policy proposal(s) before RIPE 63 - Agree on the proposal(s) and agree on the expected implementation deadline Submitting statements of intent to actively participate -------------------------------------------------------- If you would like to participate in the task force, please email the RIPE NCC's Database Manager, Paul Palse, at <ppalse(a)ripe.net>. ________________________________________________________________________ Best regards, Wilfried, circulating this invitation on behalf of the group of the proponents, with kudos to the colleagues at the RIPE NCC for their help with wording!

1 0

FW: [policy-announce] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
by Erik Bais 01 Feb '11

01 Feb '11

Hi, I was wondering what the status is of this policy. I haven't seen any updates or feedback on this and I think that it would make a lot of sense to proceed with this proposal. For those that didn't go to the RIPE 61 meeting (like myself) or missed Nick Hilliard his preso on the topic : http://ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/318-inex-ripe-rome-apwg-minassignments… You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html and the draft document at: http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-492-draft2006-05.html Regards, Erik Bais

1 0

2010-06 is going to Last Call
by Shane Kerr 28 Jan '11

28 Jan '11

Hello, [ Courtesy copy sent to address policy and database working groups. Please follow up on the ipv6-wg list. ] The Review Phase for the RIPE policy proposal 2010-06 ended on 2010-12-27 (Monday, 27 December 2010). You can see the policy proposal here: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-06.html There were some clarifications during the Review Phase, but nothing indicating changes needed. David and I have decided that the proposal is ready for a Last Call. (As co-author of the proposal, Marco has recused himself from any consensus judgments.) The last call period is four weeks, so will end 2010-02-03 (Thursday, 3 February 2011). Please e-mail any final comments to ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net before then. Thanks, -- Shane

13 12

2010-07 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP)
by Emilio Madaio 27 Jan '11

27 Jan '11

Dear Colleagues, The proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-451 has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-07.html The reason for withdrawal is: the editorial text change proposed will be discussed in the Cosmetic Surgery Project Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0