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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Policy Proposal (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Martin Millnert 26 Oct '11

26 Oct '11

Hi, On Oct 25, 2011, at 11:51, "Emilio Madaio" <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 I support this policy. I do have a question for clarification: andy, you speak about "peering LAN" in singular. How is the policy to be interpreted by the IPRAs for IXPs requesting space for different-size MTU peering LANs? A luxury we can't afford after runout, or? Best, Martin

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Policy Proposal (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Dan Luedtke 26 Oct '11

26 Oct '11

I support this proposal. One question: Is it the same /16 in 5.6.2 as in 5.6.3? Or does that mean that two /16 will be held back? regards. danrl -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Policy Proposal (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Brian Nisbet 25 Oct '11

25 Oct '11

On 25/10/2011 10:51, Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now > available for discussion. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 I support this policy. Brian.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Policy Proposal (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by boggits 25 Oct '11

25 Oct '11

On 25 October 2011 10:51, Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 > I support this policy J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

1 0

2011-05 New Policy Proposal (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Emilio Madaio 25 Oct '11

25 Oct '11

Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 22 November 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal
by Ahmed Abu-Abed 25 Oct '11

25 Oct '11

Interesting to see a v6-in-v4 access protocol triggering a significant change in allocation policy. As 6rd gobbles up 32 bits for the v4 address at the consumers v6 assignment, there is an alternative in RFC 5572 (TSP) that presents v6-in-v4 access on CPEs without such a need. And TSP can be implemented as a software client so LIRs do not need to change the CPEs to roll out IPv6 to end users. -Ahmed ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:28:47 +0200 From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan(a)go6.si> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Message-ID: <4EA5BC6F.90005(a)go6.si> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 10/24/11 7:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > why are we screwing around? let's go straight to a /16 or at least a > /20. it would not be fair to legacy v6 allocations :) can only expand to /29 without renumbering :S cheers, Jan

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Remco Van Mook 24 Oct '11

24 Oct '11

All, I support the thought that LIRs should be able to get up to a /29 as an initial allocation with no documentation required. However, that doesn't mean I support the policy proposal in its current form. Here's why. In the current policy text, it's very clear cut that unless you provide documentation (which means you've thought about how to deploy), you get a /32. I would not want a situation where people get a /29 without thinking, making a mess of it and then come back. So you could get a /29 if you asked for it specifically, otherwise you get a /32. So I would propose the following: Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For initial allocations up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary. Organisations may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 by submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of existing users and the extent of the organisation's infrastructure. --snip-- And, of course, using up your /29 in one go means no additional adjacent reserved address space on the RIPE NCC books, but that's an implementation issue :) Best Remco van Mook Director of Interconnection, Europe remco.vanmook(a)eu.equinix.com +31 61 135 6365 MOB EQUINIX 51-53 Great Marlborough Street London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom On 21-10-11 12:44, "Emilio Madaio" <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > >Dear Colleagues, > >A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for >discussion. > >You can find the full proposal at: > > www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 > >We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to ><address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 18 November 2011. > >Regards > >Emilio Madaio >Policy Development Officer >RIPE NCC > > 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, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Sascha Lenz 24 Oct '11

24 Oct '11

Hi, > Dear Colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 18 November 2011. Short: I support it. Long: well, i'm one of those guys who prefer to implement native IPv6 from scratch and skip all those crappy transition methods completely. It actually works im my world. ...but unfortunately(?) my world is huge corporate networks and rather small scale ISPs, haven't worked for a big ISPs for a decade now, so i guess there could be a case for 6rd somewhere else. It's a little awkward that the proposal mentions "small ISPs", because with small ISPs there shouldn't be a problem to implement native IPv6... Anyways, the reason why i do support the proposal is just getting the additional bits for proper subnetting, that actually is a little PITA if you're a "not-big-yet-but-not-so-little-anymore"-type ISP. Doing network design meant to last more than some years the right way is a little hard there with a /32 sometimes. So i would welcome /29s instead of /32s. I cannot always justify more than an initial /32 at the moment. If that also helps with 6RD deployments, and it certainly does, sure, good thing. I don't see any downside of that since even for the earlier Allocations this was reserved already. But we should be clear here: /29 should be the end of the road for "no documentation needed". -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect

1 0

2011-03 Proposal Accepted (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
by Emilio Madaio 21 Oct '11

21 Oct '11

Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE Document ripe-528, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-03 The updated RIPE policy document is ripe-530 and is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-530 Thank you for your input. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Emilio Madaio 21 Oct '11

21 Oct '11

Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 18 November 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0