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

2005-08 New Policy Proposal
by RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator 03 Nov '05

03 Nov '05

PDP Number: 2005-08 Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-ripe-267 is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 2 November 2005. After this date, we will prepare a draft RIPE document. We will let you know when this is available. There is a new mailing list for announcing policy proposals and tracking them through the policy development process. You can subscribe to the policy-announce list at: http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/policy-announce Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC

13 30

(no subject)
by Eri Chatzifotiou 31 Oct '05

31 Oct '05

We are gr.tpp We have a point of presence, which is in Cyprus (Different Country) and for now, we are using a /24 Subnet for their needs. The problem is that they need to anounce this subnet through a different isp then the one that we are using. They want only to anounce the 82.197.100.0 /255 to their isp cooperator. Thank you

1 0

New RIPE Document available: RIPE-353
by RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new RIPE Document is available from the RIPE Document store. Ref: ripe-353 Title: ASN Missing In Action, A Comparison of RIR Statistics and RIS Reality Author: Henk Uijterwaal, Rene Wilhelm Date: October 2005 Format: PDF=763999 Obsoletes: Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: Short content description ------------------------- In this paper, we look at Autonomous System Number (ASN) assignments by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and the number of unique ASNs seen by routers on the Internet. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- You can access the RIPE documents in HTML format via our website at the following URL:. http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-353.html The RIPE Document Store is also available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-353.pdf PDF version Kind Regards, RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
by Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com 06 Oct '05

06 Oct '05

> The answer is "the RIPE policies have no answers how to do things that > are in violation of the RIPE policies" - and assigning 10 IPv6 addresses > is against the policy. Assigning 10 IPv6 addresses is *NOT* against RIPE policy! It may come as a surprise to those of you who do not speak English as a native language, but the word "assign" is a synonym of the word "allocate" and both have a very general meaning of distributing something to multiple recipients. The fact that RIR policies use these synonyms in specific and distinct ways does not change the fact that anyone who learns English as a language of communication will learn that these two words mean the same thing and can be substituted for one another. Even worse (Horrors!) these two words can be used in business outside of the context of the RIRs. ISPs can allocate circuit bandwidth to customers, assign them to router ports, distribute IP addresses to them, etc. Inside the business he can certainly assign 10 addresses to his customer, however the very fact that he is choosing to allocate the customer 10 addresses shows that he is doing a private act. Since it is a private act, we don't want to know that he distributed 10 addresses to this customer and therefore, the allotment of 10 addresses does not need to be registered in the RIPE database. If he had given out an entire /64 to the customer we still don't need to see this apportionment in the database. The addresses designated for a customer only need to be seen in the database when the act of earmarking these addresses for customer use is in alignment with the RIPE policy. Presumably, at a technical level, if there is no route created in the service provider's OSPF or ISIS then it doesn't need to be published. But don't take my word for that because I really don't understand what RPE-267 3.3 says. > The policy is a bit vague here, admitted. I agree. --Michael Dillon

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
by Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com 06 Oct '05

06 Oct '05

> Would there be any real value in registering private users in Whois? > How likely is it that the end user could provide assistance to > whoever contacted them? Finally we are getting to the heart of the question which is about administrative procedure, i.e. policies, not about technology. The technology specifies that a "network" should be assigned a /64 but this thing called a "network" may not be an Ethernet broadcast domain. Different people will do different things with devices and this will lead them to use different address allocation strategies. For instance, consider an RS-232 cable daisychained through a factory with modems to handle the signal strength amplification when the signal gets too strong. Imagine 10 devices attached to this daisy chained RS 232 cable which use IPv6 to communicate. One might consider this a network or one might not. Is this decision a public policy decision or not? It really depends on where one puts the boundary between the public domain of the RIR and the private domain of the end user. Where should this boundary be? Is the current definition of the boundary too fuzzy? Does the RIR database contain more detail than it should because of the fuzziness of this boundary? Is the current definition of the boundary too tightly aligned with the 1990's world of ISPs and end users where ISPs use PDH and SDH networks while end users use Ethernet? What should go in the RIR database? What should stay out of the database because it is nobody else's business? --Michael Dillon

2 1

RIPE 51 - Address Policy WG Agenda (Draft)
by Andrea Borgato 05 Oct '05

05 Oct '05

Hello to everybody. Here in the following you can find Address Policy WG final draft of agenda. Regards, Andrea Borgato - Address Policy WG co-chair ----------------------------- CUT HERE ----------------------------- RIPE 51 - Address Policy Working Group Agenda (Draft) When: Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 14:00 - 15:30 Where: Grand Ballroom, Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam A. Administrative Matters - Welcome - Select a scribe - Distribute participants list - Finalise agenda - Approve minutes from RIPE 50: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r50-minutes.html B. Policy overview - Regional policy overview -- status of the PDP and transition to the PDP -- summary of the status of the current regional proposals started under the "beta test of the PDP" and now in "official PDP" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/ - Global policy overview -- Status of the IPv4 Global Policy -- Status of the IPv6 Global Policy C. Policy proposal: #2005-01: IPv4-HD-Ratio Action on: HPH D. Policy proposal: #2005-02: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy Action on: Andreas Baess / Leo Vegoda (short update and current status) E. Policy proposal: #2005-03: IPv6 initial allocation criteria Action on: Andy Furnell / Leo Vegoda (current status and go ahead with discussion from mailing list) F. Policy proposal: #2005-04: definition of an "end site", Eric Schmidt (this definitely needs time for discussion - 15minutes?) G. Policy proposal: #2005-09 "global IPv6 distribution: ICANN/IANA->RIRs" (short update, now formally run through the PDP) H. Policy proposal: #2005-08 (Kurtis Lindqvist, Geoff Huston - RIPE IPv6 change of endsite allocations from /48 to /56) (need time for discussions) Z. Any other Business ----------------------------- CUT HERE -----------------------------

1 0

2005-09 New Policy Proposal
by RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator 04 Oct '05

04 Oct '05

PDP Number: 2005-09 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy has been proposed and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-09.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 1 November 2005. After this date, we will prepare a draft RIPE Document. We will let you know when this is available. Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE Policy Development Process
by Paul Rendek 01 Sep '05

01 Sep '05

Dear Colleagues We are pleased to announce that Rob Blokzijl, RIPE Chair, has published a new RIPE Document, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", (ripe-350). This document formally describes the policy development process. The updated process is operational from today, 1 September 2005. A new RIPE web page describes all the active policy proposals and their status. Each proposal has a page showing its history, status and all supporting documentation. This page can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/index.html A new mailing list <policy-announce(a)ripe.net> has been created for announcing policy proposals and tracking them through the policy development process. This is not a discussion list; discussions will continue to take place on relevant RIPE Working Group lists and at RIPE Meetings. You can subscribe to the policy-announce list at: http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/policy-announce List archives are available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/policy-announce/ Kind regards Paul Rendek Head of Member Services and Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD ratio policy proposal
by Kristian Rastas 29 Aug '05

29 Aug '05

Hello all, correction time, on the contrary what I expressed in my previous message during summer, Local Internet Registry fi.sonera supports ETNO's proposal on HD-ratio. My previous message should be taken solely as a personal flameout based on my misinterpretation of the situation and lack of timely and correct information back then. Accidents do happen, unfortunately. I'm also sorry for littering the discussion list with my confusing message. That should not happen again, not even accidentally. With regrets, Kristian Rastas, fi.sonera "The only completely consistent people are the dead" -Aldous Huxley

1 0

Fwd: Re: [AA] Aanvraag IPv6 adressen
by Aad van der Zanden 25 Aug '05

25 Aug '05

Dear Sir/Madam IPv6 is one of the key research areas within NC3A and we have come across an issue on addressing. I have presented my questions to SURFnet ( which you can find below ) Since Surfnet has not yet presented their views yet I continued my search. I came acros the ECP IPv6 portal and a presentation by Rumy Kanis from RIPE NCC. http://www.ecp.nl/ipv6/docs/Rumy_Kanis_27apr05#1 which refers to IPv6 plicy and this seems relevant to our problem. I am wondering if you can lead me to the right channel for some more guidance on the issue of global IPv6 addres assignments for large geographical distributed organisations like NATO , We are also curious in which database tools are used by RIRs ? Could you help me in finding the right sources or people to get more clearness on this issue so we can further expand our IPv6 work. Regards Aad van der Zanden. >Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:34:43 +0200 >To: Jasper Distelbrink <jasper.distelbrink(a)surfnet.nl>,Rogier Spoor ><rogier.spoor(a)surfnet.nl> >From: Aad van der Zanden <Aad.van.der.Zanden(a)nc3a.nato.int> >Subject: Re: [AA] Aanvraag IPv6 adressen >Cc: >selm,jan-willem.smaal@nc3a.nato.int,levente.janovszki@nc3a.nato.int,goode,martin.gerritsen@nc3a.nato.int > > >Dear Jasper /Rogier > >In March '05 our first official IPv6 block has been assigned to us; >2001:0610:0B20::/48. As it turns out, the policy is that even any home >user gets a /48 assigned as a minimum. One starts wondering whether a /48 >is then a proper size if one is allocating v6 addresses to an organisation >that has currently approx 500 people as well as numerous pilot networks >spread over several locations. > >So after a review on the IPv6 address assignment ( and tryiing to sqeeuze >all in the /48 ) we have come across a much broader view on assignment of >IPv6 address space. Our Agency takes part or iniitated numerous networking >initiatives that are ( or becoming ) pilots to larger scale >implementations. These network can have external connectivity ( sometimes >exceeding international borders as well). Next to this these network may >have several security classifications levels/layers. > >As an example: >We have a network called NGCS. It now simulates only 5-7 Headquarter >locations; the network is built upon two or more security levels/layers. >So every "Headquarter" has at least these layers. > - An "open layer" that is still a closed IP environment but may > be using the internet as bearer one day - still it needs IPv6 capability now > - a closed encrypted ( by means of IP crypto ) layer of networks > - still it requires IPv6 capability now > - some closed usergroups built on top by means of firewalls - > also requires IPv6 capability to be studied >This pilot network is the first phase to the generic NATO IPv4/IPv6 >provisioning network so will scale to be a very large network in the end. > >How should we approach the IPv6 address assignment for this network in >your view? >Could we currently apply for a larger IPv6 address space for the pilot for >the open layer too from SURFnet? And what about the closed IP layer in the >pilot? >What if the deployment becomes a fact - who will provide the NATO IPv6 >addresses if some of those Headquarters are not directly ISP connected >Who is going to provide the closed layer IPv6 addresses? Since there is no >private IPv6 address space, where should this address block come from ? ( >so in the early pilot stage and in the "operational" stage?) > >Other networks exist which are built upon (NC3A private ) infrastructure >which crosses international borders to regional offices. So if we plan to >deploy IPv6 on these networks too. How do we go about implementing IPv6 >addressing here? > >It would help if you could outline the SURFnet approach to these >interesting issues. >For now - can we apply for more IPv6 address space ( or a larger block ) >to cover all these pilot networks ? > >Regards > Aad

2 1