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

"Dirty" recycled network assigned
by Max Tulyev 28 Jan '08

28 Jan '08

Hello All, I just got an assignment for my client (large PI block). But this block is listed in all DNS RBLs and DUN lists, as it was in use till Oct'07 as dynamic DHCP pool of other big ISP. So my client says they can't use this network, because mail service is blocked. RIPE rejected my request to change this network to another one: "As we do understand how unfortunate this is for **********, there is nothing we can do about prefixes that appear on so called black lists." How can I solve this? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

12 21

2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
by Filiz Yilmaz 19 Jan '08

19 Jan '08

PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. With the acceptance of this proposal, the RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time operation to assign a /56 IPv6 PI prefix to all End Users with an IPv4 assignment registered in the RIPE Database. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-01.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 12 February 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

27 62

2008-02 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
by Filiz Yilmaz 18 Jan '08

18 Jan '08

PDP Number: 2008-02 Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 12 February 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
by Marcin Gondek 16 Jan '08

16 Jan '08

Garry Glendown pisze: > Marcin Gondek wrote: >> If the price will be higher, then everybody join to RIPE as LIR. And >> then we will have +1000% of LIRs. Do "we" need this? >> Now everybody is waiting for some kind of statesment or procedure >> from RIPE side. >> > Price should be low enough to keep people from becoming an LIR > unnecessarily, but high enough to make them think twice about getting > space that they don't need ;) > Indeed -- Marcin Gondek / Drixter e-utp.net NIP: PL1181589645 REGON: 140584662 Tel. +48602159929 Fax. +48222012418 office(a)e-utp.net http://www.e-utp.net

1 0

PA vs PI routing pollution question
by Max Tulyev 07 Jan '08

07 Jan '08

Hello! As I send a lot of PI address space requests for my customers, RIPE hostmasters often says LIR is better than PI because of "That way they can receive as much contiguous (!) PA address space as they need." When I establish a new LIR, I write almost same request for PA, and it contains same address space usage plan for two years. PI networks requested after two years are not contiguous, and I understand why. Is it means RIPE reserve some contiguous network for future grow for LIRs? If yes, how big is this reservation? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

1 0

/24 in Europe, AP and North America?
by Hank Nussbacher 30 Nov '07

30 Nov '07

This may have been covered before but I'm not sure. I have a client that needs a /24 in Europe, a /24 in AP and a /24 in North America - all for multihoming purposes (in each area). If he becomes a RIPE member, can he get the 3 /24s and 3 ASNs of which only one set will be used in Europe? Or just get the /19 like everyone else, and carve it into 3 chunks and route them each from a different area? Thanks, Hank

4 3

2005-08 Implementation
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails.] Dear Colleagues, We previously announced that the policy proposal 2005-08, "Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy" had been accepted by the RIPE community. This policy has now been implemented by the RIPE NCC and the following RIPE Documents have been published: ripe-421, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-421.html ripe-422, "Supporting Notes for the IPv6 First Allocation Request Form" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-422.html ripe-425, "IPv6 First Allocation Request Form" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-425.html Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

2007-09 New Policy Proposal (Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool)
by Filiz Yilmaz 26 Nov '07

26 Nov '07

PDP Number: 2007-09 Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This policy will establish a process for RIR-to-RIR redistribution of the tail-end of the IPv4 pool, taking effect after the IANA Reserve is exhausted. Each redistribution Allocation will be triggered by the recipient RIR depleting its reserve to a 30 day supply, and will result in up to a 3 month supply being transferred from the RIR with the longest remaining time before it exhausts its own pool. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-09.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 24 December 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Filiz Yilmaz 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This proposal outlines a framework to migrate previously allocated IPv4 resources from one Local Internet Registry (LIR) to another LIR within the RIPE NCC Service Region. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 20 November 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

14 24

Commercial IPv6 firewall support
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 07 Nov '07

07 Nov '07

Some people have claimed that they cannot yet sell IPv6 Internet access because there is no IPv6 firewall support. According to this ICANN study: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac021.pdf this is not quite true. At least 30% of the 42 vendors surveyed, had IPv6 support. According to this talk <http://www.guug.de/veranstaltungen/ecai6-2007/slides/2007-ECA-I6-Status -IPv6-Firewalling-PeterBieringer-Talk.pdf> many open-source and commercial firewalls supporting IPv6 are available. IPCop is based on Linux <http://www.ipcop.org/index.php?module=pnWikka&tag=IPCopScreenshots> m0n0wall is based on FreeBSD <http://m0n0.ch/wall/screenshots.php> pfSense is also based on FreeBSD <http://pfsense.com/index.php?id=26> FWBuilder is a management tool that builds filter setups for several different firewalls. <http://www.fwbuilder.org/archives/cat_screenshots.html> Checkpoint FW1 NGX R65 on SecurePlatform supports IPv6 FortiGate supports IPv6 in FortiOS 3.0 and up. Juniper SSG (formerly Netscreen) supports IPv6 in ScreenOS 6.0 and up. Cisco ASA (formerly PIX) supports IPv6 in version 7.0 and up. I suspect that the people complaining about IPv6 support are partially complaining because they have older hardware that the vendor does not plan to upgrade to IPv6 support until they have all features implemented in their newer products, and partially complaining because their vendor has not implemented some feature which they happen to use. Commercial firewall support may be lagging behind OS and router support, but not by much. And if commercial vendors are not responsive, maybe you should try pricing out an open source solution with a consultant. I believe there is a gap here that startup firewall companies could fill if they understand the enterprise market. --Michael Dillon

3 3