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

List of IPv6 measurements published on RIPE Labs
by Mirjam Kuehne 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

[I am sorry if you receive this more than once.] Dear colleagues, Please see two articles related to IPv6 Measurements recently published on RIPE Labs: 1. A list of IPv6 measurements various people and organisations are doing with a short description and pointers to the actual results of the measurements http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-measurement-compilation 2. An interview with Alain Durand about the IPv6 measurements he is doing at Comcast together with the University of Pennsylvania http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-monitor We would like to get feedback from you about the measurements presented. How would you chose to measure the growing deployment of IPv6? Have you set criteria for when you will deploy IPv6? Let us know what information and analysis would be helpful to assist you in the deployment of IPv6. And would measurements influence your decision to deploy IPv6 or not? Please go to the forum at http://labs.ripe.net/node/ipv6-measurements or contact me directly at labs(a)ripe.net. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

2009-08 Implementation: IPv6 PI Assignments for LIRs
by Nathalie Trenaman 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that RIPE Policy Proposal 2009-08,"IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs", has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now ready to accept requests for IPv6 address space under the new policy. This proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-08.html The updated "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html The following document has also been updated to reflect this policy implementation: http://ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-pi-support.html Regards, Nathalie Trenaman Registration Services RIPE NCC

1 0

2006-01 IPv6 PI implementation
by Sergey Myasoedov 09 Dec '09

09 Dec '09

Hello, can anyone explain me is there a restriction in policy for assigning /48 PI IPv6 to ISP which will use /64-/128 prefixes to connect broadband customers? -- Sergey

3 2

RE: IPv6 allocations for 6RD
by Milton L Mueller 07 Dec '09

07 Dec '09

> 3.5. Conservation and Administrative Ease > Although IPv6 provides an extremely large pool of address space, > historical evidence shows that what now seems infinit might one day > turn out to become a scarce resource, Address policies should avoid > unnecessarily wasteful practices of such resources. Requests for > address space should be supported by appropriate documentation and > stockpiling of unused addresses should be avoided. Assignment of > address space based on the sole argument of administrative > ease is not permitted. Examples of this include, but are not limited > to, ease of billing administration and network management. I strongly agree with the concern that v6 addresses could be depleted quickly. This problem will never be solved appropriately until you impose fees for addresses that increase with the size of the block being requested. What you seem to be learning, the hard way, is that charging nothing for addresses requires you to ration the address space using highly subjective and purely verbal, unquantifiable criteria. Such as, the term "unnecessarily wasteful" which manages to be both tautological and unprecise. Or the term "administrative ease"; ok, after that becomes a policy no one will admit that they are requesting addresses for administrative ease but will that actually alter their request? Appropriately graduated annual fees enforce conservation AND reclamation while relieving the allocator of engaging in these verbal and categorical games Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org

7 7

2009-03 Proposal Accepted (Run Out Fairly)
by Ingrid Wijte 07 Dec '09

07 Dec '09

PDP Number: 2009-03 Run Out Fairly Dear Colleagues Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2009-03, "Run Out Fairly" has been accepted by the RIPE community. The related RIPE policy document has now been updated, published and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-484.html You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03.html The RIPE NCC will implement this new policy within one month. Thank you for your input. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: Ha: [address-policy-wg] RE: an arithmetic lesson
by Remco van Mook 03 Dec '09

03 Dec '09

To upset some more sentiments; compare v4 /24s with the available v4 unicast; do the same with v6 /24s and current v6 unicast space. Rough arithmetic shows then that in that line of reasoning, a v6 /24 is more comparable to a v4 /20. Remco ----- Original Message ----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net <address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net> To: Dmitriy V Menzulskiy <DMenzulskiy(a)beeline.ru> Cc: michael.dillon(a)bt.com <michael.dillon(a)bt.com>; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Thu Dec 03 14:20:22 2009 Subject: Re: Ha: [address-policy-wg] RE: an arithmetic lesson On Dec 3, 2009, at 7:55 AM, Dmitriy V Menzulskiy wrote: > > > > > > On 3 Dec 2009, at 10:00, <michael.dillon(a)bt.com> wrote: > > > > > > > an IPv6 /24 and an IPv4 /24 use up the same percentage of the > total > > > > address space. > > > > > > How do you work that out? Please enlighten me. 2^24/2^128 x > > > 100 is many orders of magnitude smaller than 2^24/2^32 x 100: > > > gromit% bc > > > scale=50 > > > 2^24/2^128*100 > > > .00000000000000000000000000000493038065763132378300 > > > 2^24/2^32*100 > > > .39062500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 > > > > > > There are of course the same number of IPv4 and IPv6 /24s. > > > > Percentage is calculated by dividing the number of things > > under consideration by the total number of things. When > > I used the word "an", I meant one thing. > > > > Assuming that the number of IPv4 and IPv6 /24s is 10 > > > > 1/10 = 1/10 > > > > Assuming that the number of IPv4 and IPv6 /24s is 8192 > > > > 1/8192 = 1/8192 > > > > Assuming that the number of IPv4 and IPv6 /24s is 2882873787 > > > > 1/2882873787 = 1/2882873787 > > > > Do you see a pattern forming? > > > > --Michael Dillon > > > > As I understand: > > IPv4 /24 is (Total IPv4)/(2^24) > IPv6 /24 is (Total IPv6)/(2^24) > > Or not ? > Not. The ratio you want, using your formalism, is (2^(size of address space - 24)) / (Total IPvX) which is 2^(N - 24) / 2^N = 1 / 2^24 (where N is the number of bits in the address space). Regards Marshall > > WBR, > > Dmitry Menzulskiy, DM3740-RIPE > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.

3 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
by Rémi Després 03 Dec '09

03 Dec '09

Le 27 nov. 2009 à 17:16, Rémi Després a écrit : > Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > I do *not* think 6RD bad design (or implementation) should warrant giving each ISP a /24 or /28. The objective of 6rd has been to make native IPv6 connectivity quickly available to millions of residential customers. For this, it was important to relieve the first concerned ISP of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, concerning expenses to be incurred. This objective has been brilliantly achieved when Free, after only 5 weeks, evolved from "we don't want to spend a Euro on IPv6" to "IPv6 is available to our customers who wish to activate it with a click". If promoting IPv6, not only with words but also in reality, is considered a legitimate objective, then it is fair to view 6rd as a "good design" for what it was set to achieve. Similarly, what Free did should be seen as a "remarkably fast and effective implementation". No hard feelings, but I felt this needed to be said. Regards, RD (Inventor of 6rd, no professional link with Free.)

22 80

Allocated net 109.48/14 having problems accessing aome web sites
by Luis Cunha 02 Dec '09

02 Dec '09

Hello, ZON is a major ISP in Portugal, and the complains from customers with an IP address within 109.48/14 trying to access some web sites is increasing daily. Anybody with a solution different from sending a mail to each webmaster? Regards, Luis Cunha

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
by Mark Townsley 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

All, My main goal with supporting 6rd is to see IPv6 deployed by Service Providers, preferably before the onslaught of CGNs leading to RFC1918 Private IPv4 as the new default Internet Access. As such, the fact that we are even having this conversation is rather encouraging. At the moment, 6rd accounts for the largest residential IPv6 Internet deployment to date. It's natural that some SPs are interested in replicating what has shown to work well for a neighboring SP. Not all of them want to go this route, but some do, and I’m thrilled as this very likely means a sooner IPv6 deployment in the world (at least among those SPs who see 6rd as their most viable alternative). I want to underscore here that we are not talking about forever allocating space away to a transition mechanism as was done with the /16 for 6to4, or the /32 for Teredo. Those address spaces will never be used for anything else, ever. The 6rd-related requests are, of course, for allocations to SPs that actually want to deploy IPv6 to their subscriber population in relative short order. One day, I hope that 6rd is not necessary for IPv6 deployment, but for the moment I'm firmly convinced that it is in a number of cases. Perhaps the WG could consider a temporary "early adopter" 6rd policy... e.g., for the next 3-5 years, those SPs that can show that native service is not economically viable for them, but commit that they can and will deploy with 6rd, will be allocated space necessary to get off the ground. At the end of this period, the WG could re-evaluate whether to abandon the more liberal policy in light of the ability to deploy natively at that time. As for the status of 6rd in the IETF, draft-townsley… is expired, and has been replaced by the Softwires Working Group document draft-ietf-softwire-ipv6-6rd-01.txt. Many Thanks, - Mark

13 20

Securing Routing Information
by John Schnizlein 17 Nov '09

17 Nov '09

FYI, here's a report from a group of operators who got together and discussed the issues. http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/resources/docs/routingroundtable_200909.pdf John

1 0