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

IPv6 allocations for 6RD
by Jan Boogman 11 Mar '10

11 Mar '10

Hi, we are planning to offer IPv6 connectivity to our xDSL and FTTH customer base via IPv6-6RD. (see <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-townsley-ipv6-6rd-01> or for a working implementation Free's presentation at RIPE-58: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/content/presentations/ipv6-free.p…>). We asked RIPE NCC for a larger than /32 allocation (because of the way how 6RD encapsulates the customers IPv4 address in his IPv6 address and also because we want to give the customer a small subnet). The IPRA now isn't sure how to proceed and after consultation with the Policy Development Manager asked me to pose the question to the community at large. What do you think, should RIPE NCC allocate larger than /32 blocks to LIRs for cases like this and not only based on the number of end-customers? Cheers Jan Swisscom IP-Plus - AS3303

13 34

Re: [ncc-services-wg] Status Update - Independent Resource Assignments (Policy Proposal 2007-01)
by David Monosov 09 Mar '10

09 Mar '10

Dear Andrew, ncc-services-wg, address-policy-wg, Thank you kindly for this update, it is encouraging to see the success of this initiative. I can't help but notice that the number of marked resources you provide in this report appears to be significantly lower than that in a similar report Andrea Cima provided to address-policy-wg on 26/10/2009 (the previous report states 23,790 resources are marked, while only 22,958 are reported as marked in this update). Could you please elaborate on the nature of this adjustment? Additionally, it has been previously mentioned that a procedural document detailing Phase 3 of the implementation of this proposal will be made available before implementation begins. Seeing that the final deadline is less than two months and a fortnight away, how soon can we expect this document to be available, and are there any operational specifics you can already share with us? -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov Andrew de la Haye wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > In March 2009, the RIPE NCC began Phase 1 of the policy implementation > "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in > the RIPE NCC Service Region". This phase focused on new assignments of > independent Internet number resources only (PI assignments, AS Numbers, > IPv6 Internet Exchange Point (IXP) assignments and Anycasting > assignments). The implementation was carried out successfully and the > majority of RIPE NCC members are aware of the policy and contractual > requirements and are able to provide the necessary documentation when > requesting independent resources on behalf of their End Users. > > Phase 2 of the policy implementation began at the end of May 2009. This > phase focuses on existing assignments (almost 27,000). In the first step > of this phase, the RIPE NCC approached LIRs and asked them to specify > whether: > - The resources were used for the LIR's network infrastructure > - The resources were used by one of the LIR's End Users > - The End User was no longer the LIR's customer > > LIRs must provide documentation for the resources marked as "My End > User" by the end of Phase 2. This documentation should be the "End User > Assignment Agreement" between the LIR and the End User regarding the > registration of the independent Internet resources the End User holds > and the official company registration documents of the End User > organisation. > > Initially, Phase 2 was scheduled to end on 31 December 2009. However, > due to the lower-than-expected number of documents received, the > deadline was first extended until 1 March 2010 and then until 17 May > 2010, which will be the final deadline. > > > The figures showing the progress of Phase 2, as of 1 March 2010, are > presented below. > > > LIRs Participating > ----------------------- > Total LIRs to participate in Phase 2: 4,903 > Number of LIRs participated at 1 March: 4,178 > Percentage of participating LIRs: 85.2% > > > Total Resources Marked > ------------------------------ > Total amount of resources to be marked in Phase 2: 26,940 > Total amount of resources marked at 1 March: 22,958 > Percentage of resources marked: 85.2% > > > Status of 22,958 Resources Marked > ------------------------------------------ > - 5,373 are marked "My Infrastructure" (23.4%) by 3,956 LIRs > - 6,025 are marked "Not My End User" (26.25%) by 712 LIRs > - 11,560 are marked "My End User" (50.35%) by 996 LIRs > > > Status of 11,560 Resources Marked "My End User" > ------------------------------------------------------------- > - 4,849 have missing documents (42%) > - 4,522 have submitted documents (39%) > - 2,189 have approved documents (19%) > > > Regards, > Andrew de la Haye

2 1

followup on RIPE 59: feedback from the RS department
by Gert Doering 26 Feb '10

26 Feb '10

Hi APWG, at the last RIPE meeting in Amsterdam, I asked the RIPE NCC RS department to provide feedback to us regarding the day-to-day working with our policies. We make the policies, but we don't really know how well they work (especially for the great mass of LIRs that don't participate in the policy-making process) unless we get feedback. Alex Le Heux from the RIPE NCC volunteered, and reported the top three issues that cause the most questions and discussion between RS and the LIRs requesting resources. See here for the details: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-59/presentations/leheux-rough-edges-… The three issues were: - differences between IPv4 and IPv6 policy - interpretation of the AS number policy - interpretation and wording of the 80% rule At the meeting, we discussed only one of these (the interpretation of the AS number policy, see page 10-16 in the PDF), because we ran out of time - and instead of rushing all three items, the WG chairs decided to focus on one, and bring up the other two on the list. Regarding the interpretation of the AS number policy, feedback from the audience in the room (plus comments in the hallways) was quite clear - everybody who voiced their opinion argued that a LIR that can document multiple distinct routing policies is entitled to multiple AS numbers, even if it's the same organization running all of the network(s). So the Registration Services department was asked to accept multiple AS requests for the same organization if an individual unique routing policy can be documented. For details of this discussion, please see the APWG R59 minutes: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r59-minutes.html Next steps: the WG chairs will bring up the other two items to the AWPG mailing list in the next days. We need to get feedback from the community on the intent and interpretation of the current policy, and if the result is that the current policy is not really what the community wants, get the necessary changes under way. regards, Gert Doering, APWG Chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 144438 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

New Draft Document: Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies
by Filiz Yilmaz 16 Feb '10

16 Feb '10

Dear Colleagues, At the RIPE 59 Meeting in Lisbon last October, the RIPE NCC announced that it would undertake a project to improve the language of various RIPE policy documents, without changing their substance or meaning. This project is aimed at improving the clarity and readability of RIPE Documents. For more information, see: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/updated-documents/ A draft of the first RIPE Document to be revised is now available: "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies and Procedures". We have published the draft document in two layouts. The first layout contains only the proposed text, in full, and is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/updated-documents/ASN-v1.html The second layout contains both the current text and the proposed text side by side, and is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/updated-documents/ASN-v2.html At the top of both draft documents there is a summary of the proposed changes. There are two changes we would like to highlight because they constitute a slightly larger change. Paragraph 4.0 - Returning AS Numbers Excerpt from current version: "If an organisation has an AS Number that is no longer in use, it can be returned to the public pool of AS Numbers..." Excerpt from proposed draft: "If an organisation no longer uses the AS Number, it must be returned to the public pool of AS Numbers." The main difference is that the current version says the AS Number "can" be returned, while the draft version says the AS Number "must" be returned. The change was made to better reflect the intention of the policy and to be consistent. In other policy documents, for other Internet resources, the wording of the policy states "must". The other larger change is the addition of the following paragraph: Paragraph 5.0 - Validity of an Assignment This paragraph is copied from the IPv4 policy document ("IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region"). As this seems to be a shared policy principle, applicable to all Internet resources, we feel it is appropriate to add this text to the AS policy document, both for clarity and consistency. Other smaller changes are listed at the top of document. Please review the text and send your feedback to the Address Policy Working Group mailing list. The period for review is four weeks and lasts until 26 February 2010. After the review period, the Address Policy WG chairs will conclude whether or not there is consensus on the draft document. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

5 5

ripe-484 Republished as ripe-492
by Filiz Yilmaz 16 Feb '10

16 Feb '10

Dear Colleagues, During the last update of "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" (ripe-484), some text was overlooked. The missing text, which comes from the accepted proposal "Run Out Fairly" (2009-03), has been restored and an updated document has been published as ripe-492. You can find this document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html We apologise for any inconvenience. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

نشره تراتيل حليم الادبيه
by منتديات تراتيل حلم الادبيه 16 Feb '10

16 Feb '10

<http://www.tr-7lm.com/vb/> [image: بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 30] مختارات من اجمل مواضيع منتديات تراتيل حلم الادبيه هديه لآعضاء التراتيل بالداخل ..حصريه http://www.tr-7lm.com/vb/t7137.html تصميم حصري لتراتيل حلم http://www.tr-7lm.com/vb/t7296.html تصميم أصعب سؤال؟حصري http://www.tr-7lm.com/vb/t6757.html جيتك وانا كلي ندم .. ياربي منك التووبه .. http://www.tr-7lm.com/vb/t6354.html شات مع البخاري ومسلم !! http://www.tr-7lm.com/vb/t3929.html مسابقه اجمل قلم http://www.tr-7lm.com/vb/t5926.html إلىـا حَضرِة سُموِ {ِ الحِ‘ـَزِنْ }ِ ..}~ http://www.tr-7lm.com/vb/t5751.html توبيكات تراتيل حلم http://www.tr-7lm.com/topic/ مسابقة التحدي الكبرى مسابقة الدعوات لأعضاء مجموعة ومنتديات تراتيل حلم لا تفوتك فرص الربح ‏( جوائز قيمه ) http://www.tr-7lm.com/vb/t3195.html#post18396 <http://www.tr-7lm.com/vb/> -- لإلغاء الاشتراك في هذه المجموعة، ابعث برسالة إلكترونية إلى almhmad+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com

1 0

How polluted is 1/8?
by Mirjam Kuehne 03 Feb '10

03 Feb '10

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, After 1/8 was allocated to APNIC last week, the RIPE NCC did some measurements to find out how "polluted" this block really is. See some surprising results on RIPE Labs: http://labs.ripe.net/content/pollution-18 Please also note the call for feedback at the bottom of the article. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne

1 0

32-bit AS Number status?
by Shane Kerr 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

All, I noticed that the proposed updated AS Number policy was sent to the address-policy-wg recently. There is a timeline for 32-bit AS Number in both the old and new versions, which says: "From 1 January 2010 the RIPE NCC will cease to make any distinction between 16-bit AS Numbers and 32-bit only AS Numbers, and will operate AS Number assignments from an undifferentiated 32-bit AS Number allocation pool." I'm not sure exactly what this means, but I think it is supposed to mean that people get 32-bit AS Numbers now. Did this happen? If it didn't, why not? Do we need to change "2010" to "2011"? Is it ever going to happen? If it did, was there any effect? I mean both from humans (angry LIRs, peasants marching on the castle with torches, riots in the streets), or on the Intertubes (ugly routing artifacts, mass reboots of boxes with old firmware, monitoring systems gone wild)? Just wondering. :) -- Shane

5 5

2009-03 "Run-out fairly" implemented
by Xavier Le Bris 21 Jan '10

21 Jan '10

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails.] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that the policy described in proposal 2009-03,"Run Out Fairly", has been implemented. Requests for IPv4 address space received on or after Friday, 22 January will be evaluated by the RIPE NCC Registration Services Department under the new policy. Full text of the policy proposal can be found at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03.html The following RIPE documents have been updated to reflect this policy implementation: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-488.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-489.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-490.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-491.html Regards, Xavier Le Bris Registration Services

1 0

IPv6 PI for HOSTING
by Max Tulyev 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

Hi All, I just hear I can't use IPv6 PI network for hosting service. And I want to talk about it ;) The main problem in IPv6 implementation in the real life is a lack of resources. A lot of ISPs (including our company) providing broadband and corporate access to IPv6 Internet. And now it is running globally, pings are pinging, traces are tracing... and so what? The main question users ask us "and so, what we can do with that new IPv6 Internet?". The answer is NOTHING! There is almost NO RESOURCES in IPv6 net! No sites, no pages, no freemails - NOTHING! This makes IPv6 Internet absolutely USELESS for users. Really, unlike us, they do not become happy running bgpd and traceroute6. They need web resources. So why do you think all they change their common network to absolutely useless thing for them after IPv4 will run out? Let's go forward. Yes, a few hosters I know are big companies, LIRs, trade their traffic and so on. But majority are small companines have from one server to one-two racks of hosting servers. They will never become a LIR only for [useless now] IPv6 address space. But they host a huge piece of resources need by a lot of regular users. Yes, IPv6 can provide hosting users a lot of good things, such as unique IP for every site, FTP/SSL/SMB/torrent/personal IP-based ACLs/... without extra costs and so on - this sure will stimulate them to move to IPv6. Yes, some of hosters are ready to obtain IPv6 network and play with it right now. And NO, most of them don't want to use upstream's networks, as there is almost impossible to change it after hundred of thousands of domains are linked with this network. So I think we should ASAP change IPv6 PI policy to let hosting be the issue for IPv6 PI assignment. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

9 20