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

IPv4 PI assignment statistics
by Alex Le Heux 07 May '09

07 May '09

Dear Colleagues, During the Address Policy Working Group session at RIPE58, statistics were requested about the number and size of IPv4 PI prefixes that the RIPE NCC has assigned over the last few years. NOTE: The numbers for 2009 contain data up to May 2009. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 /16 0 1 0 0 1 /17 0 1 1 0 0 /18 1 2 3 10 1 /19 3 7 4 12 7 /20 25 28 23 44 14 /21 51 56 89 100 26 /22 260 261 261 402 111 /23 385 464 778 571 159 /24 726 897 973 1046 292 /25 10 22 8 8 5 /26 7 6 8 5 0 /27 5 8 7 7 2 /28 0 8 0 1 0 /29 2 1 0 8 0 Total 1475 1762 2155 2214 618 Please let us know if you require any further information. Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE NCC Now Accepting Requests for IPv6 PI Assignments
by Scott Donald 06 May '09

06 May '09

[Apologies for duplicate emails.] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that the RIPE NCC now accept requests for IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) assignments. This follows the accepted policy proposal 2006-01 "Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations". The request form and supporting notes are available from the RIPE Document Store at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6.html Requests can also be made via the LIR Portal, which is available at: https://lirportal.ripe.net/ IPv6 PI assignments will come from reserved block 2001:678::/29. You may want to update your filters. Regards, Scott Donald Registration Services RIPE NCC

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] Principles for the use of the last IPv4 /8 address space in the RIPE NCC Region
by Kelaidi Christina 05 May '09

05 May '09

Dear Sander Thank you for the e-mail. ETNO is aware of the policy proposals currently discussed in the RIPE community regarding the last /8. From the existing proposals it is clear that only 2009-04 is compliant to these principles. Christina Kelaidi -----Original Message----- From: Sander Steffann [mailto:sander@steffann.nl] Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 1:22 PM To: Kelaidi Christina Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Principles for the use of the last IPv4 /8 address space in the RIPE NCC Region Hello Christina, > ETNO has prepared an Expert Contribution on the Principles for the use > of the last IPv4 /8 address space in the RIPE NCC region, based on a > previous contribution with regard to IPv4 address exhaustion presented > in the RIPE address-policy-wg mailing list in May 2008. According to > ETNO any policy proposal relevant to the use of the last IPv4 /8 > address space should satisfy the principles contained in this > contribution in order to permit both a fair and equitable use of the > last IPv4 /8 address space and a flexible approach with regard to its > management. Thank you for your input. We currently have two policy proposals for the last /8: 2008-06: Use of Final /8 2009-04: IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment I think the best way forward would be for you to participate in the discussions related to these policy proposals on this mailing list. Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair ********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. ******************************** ********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. ********************************

1 0

Principles for the use of the last IPv4 /8 address space in the RIPE NCC Region
by Kelaidi Christina 04 May '09

04 May '09

Dear colleagues ETNO has prepared an Expert Contribution on the Principles for the use of the last IPv4 /8 address space in the RIPE NCC region, based on a previous contribution with regard to IPv4 address exhaustion presented in the RIPE address-policy-wg mailing list in May 2008. According to ETNO any policy proposal relevant to the use of the last IPv4 /8 address space should satisfy the principles contained in this contribution in order to permit both a fair and equitable use of the last IPv4 /8 address space and a flexible approach with regard to its management. Introduction ETNO recognises that with the theoretical date of exhaustion of IPv4 public addresses fast approaching, principles ensuring fair and equitable use of the last /8 address space in the RIPE NCC region are required. This contribution presents a number of such principles in order to initiate such discussions that are intended to lead to a RIPE NCC policy. ETNO in a previous contribution with regard to IPv4 address exhaustion identified a number of principles associated with the management of IPv4 public addresses as exhaust approached. These principles form the basis of the principles below as applied to the last /8 address space. In the development of this Expert Contribution, regarding the use of the last IPv4/8, ETNO wants to guarantee that any policy developed is based upon the fair and equitable allocation of address space to all LIR's, irrespective of whether they are new or existing. Principles Demonstrated Need Allocation Allocation of IPv4 addresses from the last IPv4 /8 should be treated the same way for all Registries (LIR), and should be in response to their demonstrated need. Pre-determined Use Assignment from the last IPv4 /8 should only be used to facilitate the deployment of IPv6 Public address resource by the LIR. Size of Address Allocation The size of any allocation from the last IPv4 /8 should be based upon flexibility, recognising that it is an allocation from the last /8, and meeting the needs of the applicant. As a consequence the size of address allocated may require adaptation of the current and existing allocation rules. Predictability of Allocation Relevant policies associated with the allocation from the last IPv4 /8 should be announced well in advance in order to give sufficient time for operators and ISPs through their LIRs to be prepared. Conclusion ETNO supports the development of a RIPE policy detailing how the last IPv4 /8 will be deployed in order to ensure clarity for all stakeholders. ETNO believes that the above principles should be the basis of any RIPE policy related to the last IPv4 /8 and supported by the implementation of appropriate measures and actions. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues (NANI) WG Chairperson ETNO (European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association) is representing 40 major companies from 34 European countries, providing electronic communications networks over fixed, mobile or personal communications systems. ETNO's primary purpose is to establish a constructive dialogue between its member companies and actors involved in the development of the European Information Society to the benefit of users. More information on ETNO can be found at: www.etno.be.

2 1

2008-05 Review Period extended until 11 May 2009 (Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM)
by Ingrid Wijte 27 Apr '09

27 Apr '09

PDP Number: 2008-05 Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2008-05 has been revised based on the community feedback. We have published the new version (version 4.0) today. As a result a new Review Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-05.html and the draft RIPE Documents at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-449-draft2008-05-v4.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-466-draft2008-05.html We encourage you to read the revised proposal and the draft documents, and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 May 2008. Regards, Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2009-02 Discussion Period extended until 21 May 2009 (Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC)
by Ingrid Wijte 23 Apr '09

23 Apr '09

PDP Number: 2009-02 Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2009-02 has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 2) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-02.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 21 May 2009. Regards, Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

3 2

(Draft) Agenda for RIPE 58
by Gert Doering 22 Apr '09

22 Apr '09

Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Amsterdam in the following 2.5 time slots: Wednesday, May 6, 09:45 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 6, 11:00 - 12:30 Thursday, May 7, 09:00 - 10:30 The exact time lines depend a bit on how much discussion is going on, so we might move items one time slot "up" or "down". If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or of we need to change anything, please let us know. Due to the "RIPE 20 years" celebration on Thursday, we didn't get as much time as I had hoped for, so some of the discussions might have to be cut short and redirected to the mailing list. Sorry for that. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:45-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) Update on the implementation of 2007-01 ** will be covered in the NCC Services WG ** B. Current Policy Topics - Filiz Yilmaz [25-30 min] - overview over concluded protocols (2006-01 [IPv6 PI], 2007-05 [ULA-Central], 2007-08 [Transfers], 2008-09 [ASPLAIN format]) - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) C. ASN 32-bit policy - Experiences and Review presentation by Daniel Karrenberg, discussion [10+10 min] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- E. New Proposals since RIPE 57 overview about what's coming [5-10 min] F. Discussion of open policy proposals, grouped by similarity of topic --- PI and special-case address space related --- 2006-05 PI Assignment Size [0 min] (will be mentioned in the "overview" and will not be discussed again) 2008-05 Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM [15 min] (5-minute presentation about v3 and issues addressed, Q&A, discussion) 2009-02 Internet Resource Assignment to the RIPE NCC (Remco) [10 min] (3-minute presentation about v2, Q&A, discussion) 2009-05 Multiple IPv6 Allocations for LIRs [15 min] --- end of IPv4 session (1) --- 2009-03 IPv4 Run-Out Fairly Proposal (Daniel Karrenberg) [25 min] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, 09:00-11:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- end of IPv4 session (2) --- 2009-01 Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to [15-20 min] Regional Internet Registries (see also http://www.apnic.net/policy/discussions/prop-069-v002.txt) Presentation by Axel Pawlik from the RIPE NCC. 2008-06 Phil Smith (1) - Usage of final /8 [5 min] (see also http://www.apnic.net/policy/discussions/prop-062-v002.txt) 2009-04 IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment [5 min] (Alain Bidron) joint discussion about both proposals, because both [30 min] affect usage of the last /8 -> the WG needs to decide how to proceed with these two colliding proposals. 2008-07 Phil Smith (2) - Efficient use of historical IPv4 res. [15-20 min] (see also http://www.apnic.net/policy/discussions/prop-066-v004.txt) --- cross-WG material --- 2008-08 Initial Certification Policy for PA Space Holders [0 min] CA-TF, presentation by Nigel Titley, + Discussion (this will also be discussed in the NCC services WG, just included in the list of "open proposals" for completeness) Y. Open Policy Hour "The Open Policy Hour (OPH) is a showcase for your policy ideas. If you have a policy proposal you'd like to debut, prior to formally submitting it, here is your opportunity." (Idea from ARIN policy meeting) Z. AOB -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 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

2006-01 Proposal Accepted (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
by Filiz Yilmaz 22 Apr '09

22 Apr '09

PDP Number: 2006-01 Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2006-01, "Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations" has been accepted by the RIPE community. The related RIPE policy document is now updated, published and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-466.html or http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html The proposal is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html The RIPE NCC will implement this new policy within one month. Thank you for your input. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

Draft Proposal: Assignment of an IPv4 /24 for documentation purposes
by Peter Koch 21 Apr '09

21 Apr '09

Dear WG, this is a rough draft policy proposal. I'd appreciate some feedback before I decide whether to invoke the formal process. Summary: The RIPE NCC is asked to assign an IPv4 /24 for documentation purposes. Background: In example configurations, RFCs, training material and other documentation it is necessary from time to time to include IP addresses, domain names or even phone numbers as examples. These resources should meet all syntactical requirements (e.g., be "real" IP addresses), but should not interfere with assignments or registrations by innocent third parties. See RFC 4085 (BCP 105) for what could happen in the worst case. For the DNS, RFC 2606 (BCP 32) has set aside several top level and second level domain names and the network 192.0.2/24 has been dedicated for documentation and test purposes by the IANA in the past (see RFC 3330). RFC 3849 ("IPv6 Address Prefix Reserved for Documentation") documents APNIC's assignment of 2001:DB8::/32 for the sole use in example texts. Motivation: During recent discussion within the IETF, but also on other occasions in the past, it appeared that a single /24 is often not enough to support instructive examples. This may include more complex network designs, or the use of addresses for DNS name servers, where good practice (see RFC 2182, BCP 16) suggests topological diversity. Sometimes, address space from RFC 1918 (BCP 5) is used in addition to or as a replacement for 192.0.2/24, but this is also a source of confusion due to the special nature of the "private address space". It also conflicts with the goal to avoid any collision with addresses used in real life, even if the burden would be spread across many users of RFC 1918 address space. Request: The RIPE NCC is asked to assign and dedicate a /24 that is reasonable visually distinct from 192.0.2/24 for documentation only purposes. The network is not to be used and the prefix is never expected to be announced in any BGP session (cf. 3849). The new assignment is not intended to serve as a supplement to RFC 1918 address space. It is intentionally left open here whether similar considerations would suggest an additional assignment in v6 space, as well. The pros should be obvious to anyone who ever had to write documentation or example configurations, but there are also some cons: o another /24 is a waste of space o just a /24 won't be enough o this creates yet another bogon o any invest in IPv4 is a waste of resources, anyway o nobody knew 192.0.2/24 in the first place, so why add to the confusion? o this doesn't need a policy proposal, but could be dealt with through a specially "sponsored" PI assignment A special action seems cleaner to me than some random PI assignment, but this is why I'd like to ask the WG for feedback. Also, if anyone is aware of other address space similar to 192.0.2/24, I'd appreciate a pointer. Best regards, Peter

7 9

do you believe ? the time is near.
by Frederic 21 Apr '09

21 Apr '09

hi, http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html it is time to permit IPV6-PI assignement. That the way to permit to IPV6 to be alive in the entire network. Awaiting Decision from WG Chairs : Please give you décision. we need, we want ask our Ipv6-PI ! Bst regards. F.

1 0