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

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

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