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

2009-07 Moved to Review Phase (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries)
by Filiz Yilmaz 16 Jul '09

16 Jul '09

PDP Number: 2009-07 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues, We have published a draft document for the proposal described in 2009-07 as well as the impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-07.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-416-draft-2009-07.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 13 August 2009. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

PA Assignment questions
by Nolan, Keith 16 Jul '09

16 Jul '09

Address Policy Working Group, I'm working for a company who decided to become a LIR as we have a requirement for Large amounts of IP Space. We are not assigning IP Space to our customers as all the IP Space is used for our own infrastructure. We have been provided with a PA Allocation, however we are having issues getting PA Assignments approved by RIPE NCC. We applied for PA Assignments in /24 blocks so that we could multi-home using BGP from all of our production sites and some of our more critical offices These sites don't have a shared Network connecting them (except for the Internet) We are using the "allowas-in" command so that we don't need an AS Number from each non-connected site. (As the RIPE NCC wouldn't approve our application for multiple AS Numbers) The request of PA Assignments is getting rejected because 1. We can't aggregate the IP Space (RIPE NCC wants us to advertise our entire PA Space and not break it into smaller networks as we require) 2. The IP Space required in some of the sites is less than a /24 (However we need /24 networks as our Transit providers filter IP Space smaller than /24) The suggestion from RIPE NCC was to apply for smaller Assignments from the PA Space and to take each of them from a separate /24 range, and to create a /24 route object for each separate /24 Space, or to apply for PI Space for each location as PI Space was more in-line with what we are trying to achieve. While this will work, I have an issue with RIPE NCC providing a work around, and I believe the policy should allow for a LIR to use the PA Allocation in the best manner to conserve IP Space and to not have "Available" networks in PA Space which can never be assigned and to not waste PI space by not allowing a LIR use the Allocated PA Space for its own Infrastructure. Thanks Keith Keith Nolan Director of Network and IT Operations, EMEA Premiere Global Services Tel: +353 (0) 23 88 32103 Mob: +353 (0) 86 919 8149 Fax: +353 (0) 23 88 36101

3 5

Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM Implemented
by Scott Donald 16 Jul '09

16 Jul '09

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that the RIPE NCC has implemented the accepted policy proposal 2008-05, "Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM". This allows Tier 0/1 ENUM operators to receive IPv4 and IPv6 anycasting assignments and increases the number of anycasting prefixes that can be assigned to an operator from one to a maximum of four assignments. The request form and supporting notes are available from the RIPE Document Store at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/requestforms.html If you have any questions regarding this, please contact <ncc(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Scott Donald Registration Services, RIPE NCC

1 0

IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey Closed
by Paul Rendek 15 Jul '09

15 Jul '09

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, The IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey, conducted by TNO and GNKS Consult in cooperation with the RIPE NCC and sponsored by the European Commission, has now closed. More than 600 members of the RIPE community responded to the survey, which aims to collect data on the current and future use of IPv6 throughout the RIPE NCC service region. We wish to thank those from the community who took the time to complete the survey. The results of the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey will be presented and discussed at RIPE 59 which takes place in Lisbon, Portugal from 5-9 October. More information and registration details are available at: http://ripe59.ripe.net/ The results of this survey will also be published on IPv6 Act Now website at: http://www.ipv6actnow.org If you have any questions about the survey or the results, please contact <ncc(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
by Sander Steffann 15 Jul '09

15 Jul '09

Hello WG, I want to continue the discussion about the Final /8 proposals (2008-06 and 2009-04). The responses to my last question ("Do we (this working group) want to put IPv6 related requirements in the policy?") were 100% negative: We don't want IPv6 related requirements in the Final /8 policy. The next question is about the amount of addresses someone can get from the Final /8. I think we have a number of options here: a) Everyone gets one (and only one) fixed size block, as described in 2008-06 b) All requests are downscaled by a certain factor, as described in 2009-04 c) We place a limit on the amount of addresses that can be requested per time slot (year?) I think it is important to think about new companies. They will very probably require some IPv4 address space during the transition from IPv4 to IPv6. I think the whole community will be in a lot of trouble if we make a policy that makes it impossible for new entrants to participate in a dual-stack world. Once we have discussed this basic issue I'll steer the discussion back to the other differences between the proposals. Please keep the discussion on this topic for now. Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

20 37

IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey: Deadline Extended!
by Paul Rendek 06 Jul '09

06 Jul '09

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, The deadline for responding to the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey has been extended to Friday, 10 July 2009. This survey is being conducted by TNO and GNKS Consult, working with the RIPE NCC and sponsored by the European Commission. The aim is to collect data on the current and future use of IPv6 throughout the RIPE NCC service region, and all members of the RIPE community are encouraged to participate. You can access the survey at: http://is-nri.com/take/?i=150597&h=1GwWe3dXXMcPrRrOw5s2yg The survey is composed of 16 questions and can be completed in 10-15 minutes. Results will be presented and discussed at RIPE 59 and published on IPv6 Act Now: http://ipv6actnow.org Please note that all data will be kept confidential at all times, and will only be disclosed on an aggregated level. For more information on the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey, please see: http://www.ripe.net/news/ipv6-deployment-monitoring-survey.html We appreciate your time and interest in completing this survey. If you have any questions concerning the survey, please send an email to <info(a)gnksconsult.com>. Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

[#KKA-100534]: Re: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
by Stream Service 06 Jul '09

06 Jul '09

Florian Weimer, Uw ticket is ontvangen en een medewerker zal het ticket bekijken en beantwoorden. Hieronder staan de details van dit ticket. Zorg er a.u.b. voor dat het Ticket ID altijd in het onderwerp van deze email blijft staan. Ticket ID: KKA-100534 Onderwerp:Re: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2 Department: Stream Service (Algemeen) Priority: Low Status: Open U kunt hier klikken om de status van ons antwoord op het Ticket online te bekijken.http://support.streamservice.nl/index.php?_m=tickets&_a=viewticket&ticketid=17057 Wij horen het graag als we u nog ergens anders mee van dienst kunnen zijn, Stream Service (Algemeen) info(a)streamservice.nl Tel : +31 (0)53-7112711 Fax : +31 (0)53-7112716 Stream Service is een handelsnaam van SinnerG BV

1 0

[#MLT-583232]: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
by Stream Service 05 Jul '09

05 Jul '09

David Freedman, Uw ticket is ontvangen en een medewerker zal het ticket bekijken en beantwoorden. Hieronder staan de details van dit ticket. Zorg er a.u.b. voor dat het Ticket ID altijd in het onderwerp van deze email blijft staan. Ticket ID: MLT-583232 Onderwerp:RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2 Department: Stream Service (Algemeen) Priority: Low Status: Open U kunt hier klikken om de status van ons antwoord op het Ticket online te bekijken.http://support.streamservice.nl/index.php?_m=tickets&_a=viewticket&ticketid=17027 Wij horen het graag als we u nog ergens anders mee van dienst kunnen zijn, Stream Service (Algemeen) info(a)streamservice.nl Tel : +31 (0)53-7112711 Fax : +31 (0)53-7112716 Stream Service is een handelsnaam van SinnerG BV

1 0

IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey Reminder
by Paul Rendek 30 Jun '09

30 Jun '09

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, This is a reminder that the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey is online, and we encourage all members of the RIPE community to participate. The final date for submitting a response is Friday, 3 July 2009. You can access the survey at: http://is-nri.com/take/?i=150597&h=1GwWe3dXXMcPrRrOw5s2yg The survey is being conducted by TNO and GNKS Consult, working with the RIPE NCC and sponsored by the European Commission. The aim of the survey is to collect data on the current and future use of IPv6 throughout the RIPE NCC service region. The survey is composed of 16 questions and can be completed in 10-15 minutes. Results will be presented and discussed at RIPE 59 and published on IPv6 Act Now: http://ipv6actnow.org For more information on the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey, please see: http://www.ripe.net/news/ipv6-deployment-monitoring-survey.html We appreciate your time and interest in completing this survey. If you have any questions concerning the survey, please send an email to <info(a)gnksconsult.com >. Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

The final /8 policy proposals (2008-06 and 2009-04)
by Sander Steffann 23 Jun '09

23 Jun '09

Hello WG, As many of you know there are two policy proposals that describe how the final /8 from IANA should be used. These are policy proposals 2008-06 and 2009-04. There are a lot of differences between those two proposals, and it is not really possible to have them both at the same time. That means that this working group has to decide which way to go. Because there are so many differences I want to focus the discussion on a specific question at this point in time: "Do we (this working group) want to put IPv6 related requirements in the policy?" The current proposals have the following IPv6 related requirements: - Proposal 2009-04 requires the LIR to meet the requirements of the Preparation (1st request) or Transition (subsequent requests) phase of the transition plan specified in RFC 5211. - Proposal 2008-06 does not define any IPv6 requirements for an LIR. I can see the benefit (stimulate native IPv6 deployment) of such requirements, but I can also see downsides (for example organisations that need IPv4 space but can't implement IPv6 for some reason). Do organisations that don't implement IPv6 cause a problem for the community (and do we need policy to prevent that), or do they only cause problems for themselves (and should we only limit the amount of IPv4 space they can get)? When discussion possible requirements we must remember that the RIPE NCC IP Resource Analysts (formerly known as Hostmasters) should be able to check those requirements when evaluating a request. We should also look at possible loopholes. I don't think we want an LIR to give IPv6 access to a handful of customers just to be able to get another big block of IPv4 space. Once we have discussed this basic issue I'll steer the discussion back to the other differences between the proposals. Please keep the discussion on this topic for now. Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

5 4