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

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

(draft) Minutes from RIPE 59 are now online
by Gert Doering 16 Nov '09

16 Nov '09

Dear APWG participants, the (draft) minutes of the APWG meeting at the RIPE meeting in Lisbon are now online: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r59-minutes.html If you have been at the meeting, please check that everything is as you remember (so we can declare the minutes final at RIPE60), and let us know if something needs changing. If you have NOT been at the meeting, please feel free to read up what we have discussed. We have made a few decisions at the meeting, how to deal with ongoing issues, and I will announce these individually over the next weeks. A big thanks goes to the minute takers from the RIPE NCC! 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

Andrea Borgato
by Manfredo Miserocchi 05 Nov '09

05 Nov '09

Dear all, I've just received a phone call saying that Andrea isn't with us any more. For those who didn't know him, he was a real RIPE Community man for a long time, co-chairing this WG too. Friends can contact me directly (mis(a)wari.net) Thanks Manfredo Si precisa che le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio sono riservate e ad uso esclusivo del destinatario. Qualora il presente messaggio Le fosse pervenuto per errore, La invitiamo ad eliminarlo senza copiarlo ed a non inoltrarlo a terzi, dandocene gentilmente comunicazione. Grazie. You are hereby informed that this message contains confidential informations intended for the addressee's use only. If yu're not the addressee and have received this message by mistake, please delete it and immediately notify us. You may not copy or disseminate this message to anyone. Thank you.

1 0

Andrea Borgato
by Manfredo Miserocchi 05 Nov '09

05 Nov '09

Dear all, I've just received a phone call saying that Andrea isn't with us any more. For those who didn't know him, he was a real RIPE Community man for a long time, co-chairing this WG too. Friends can contact me directly. Thanks Manfredo Si precisa che le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio sono riservate e ad uso esclusivo del destinatario. Qualora il presente messaggio Le fosse pervenuto per errore, La invitiamo ad eliminarlo senza copiarlo ed a non inoltrarlo a terzi, dandocene gentilmente comunicazione. Grazie. You are hereby informed that this message contains confidential informations intended for the addressee's use only. If yu're not the addressee and have received this message by mistake, please delete it and immediately notify us. You may not copy or disseminate this message to anyone. Thank you.

1 0

2009-03 Last Call for Comments (Run Out Fairly)
by Ingrid Wijte 29 Oct '09

29 Oct '09

PDP Number: 2009-03 Run Out Fairly Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2009-03 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03.html Please note that we have also updated the proposal to version two. This new version has some minor textual changes, clarifying the intent of paragraph 6.3. Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 26 November 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0