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

2009-01 Last Call for Comments (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries)
by Emilio Madaio 16 Jun '10

16 Jun '10

PDP Number: 2009-01 Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2009-01 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-01.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 14 July 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Getting LIR
by danica hal 14 Jun '10

14 Jun '10

Hello, sorry for the inconvenience if this is the wrong place for this kind of question. In this case please be so kind and point me to the right place. We are thinking about getting a LIR and I need some informations about the requirements we need to fulfil. I know documents about requirements of getting PI and ASN but for getting LIR and tho PA i feel a bit clumsy.. :-) Thank you! best wishes, Danica

2 1

Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion
by Chris Grundemann 04 Jun '10

04 Jun '10

Hello APWG, I and a group of others have been working on a global policy proposal regarding returning and re-allocating IPv4 addresses to and from the IANA post IPv4 exhaustion. As this is a global proposal, we have decided that the best approach is to float the current draft publicly in all five regions and solicit feedback, before submitting it as an official policy proposal. We hope that this will let us identify and address any problems or gaps ahead of time and thus ease the process. Barring any major issues being raised, we hope to submit the proposal next week so I would love to get your feedback incorporated by Tuesday (8 June) if at all possible. Please feel free to provide comments on or off list. Thanks in advance - have a wonderful weekend! # Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion # Rationale: This policy defines the process for the allocation of IPv4 addresses post "Exhaustion Phase"[1]. In order to fulfill the requirements of this policy, the IANA must set up a reclamation pool to hold addresses in and distribute from in compliance with this policy. This policy establishes the process by which IPv4 addresses can be returned to and re-issued from the IANA post Exhaustion Phase. The intent of this policy is as follows: * Includes all post Exhaustion Phase address space returned to the IANA. * Allows allocations by the IANA from the Reclamation Pool once the Exhaustion Phase has been completed. * Defines "need" as the basis for further IPv4 allocations by the IANA. * Does not differentiate any class of IPv4 address space unless defined by RFC 1918. * Encourages the return of IPv4 address space by making this re-allocation process available. * Disallows transfers of addresses sourced from the Reclamation Pool in the absence of an IPV4 Global Transfer Policy to neutralize transfer process inequities across RIR regions. * Applies to legacy IPv4 Address Space initially allocated by the IANA to users including the allocations to RIRs. * Includes any length of fragments currently held by the IANA now or in the future. 1. Reclamation Pool Upon adoption of this IPv4 address policy by the ICANN Board of Directors, the IANA shall establish a Reclamation Pool to be utilized post RIR IPv4 exhaustion as defined in Section 5. As soon as the first RIR exhausts its inventory of IP address space, this Reclamation Pool will be declared active. 2. Returning Address Space to the IANA The IANA will accept into the Reclamation Pool all eligible IPv4 address space that is offerred for return. Eligible address space includes any addresses not previously designated for special use by an IETF published RFC explicitly offerred for return to the IANA by: a) The RIR to which the space is assigned b) The registrant of record where no RIR holds authority 3. Address Allocations from the Reclamation Pool by the IANA Allocations from the Reclamation Pool may begin once the pool is declared active. Aggregates in the Reclamation Pool may be divided on a CIDR boundary to the longest minimum allocation or assignment of any of the RIRs in order to complete these allocations. Addresses that are left over will be held in the Reclamation Pool until additional IP addresses are returned, or a minimum allocation unit is achieved that allows continued allocations from the pool. 4. RIR Eligibility for Receiving Allocations from the Reclamation Pool Upon the exhaustion of an RIR's free space pool, an RIR will become eligible to request address space from the IANA Reclamation Pool when it publicly announces via its respective global announcements email list and by posting a notice on its website that it has exhausted its supply of IPv4 address space. Exhaustion is defined as an inventory of less than the equivalent of a single /8 and the inability to further assign address space to its customers in units equal to or shorter than the longest of the RIR's policy defined minimum allocation unit. Any RIR that is formed after this policy has been adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors is not eligible to utilize this policy to obtain IPv4 address space from the IANA. 5. Reporting Requirements The IANA shall publish on at least a weekly basis a report that is publicly available which at a minimum details all address space that has been received and that has been allocated. The IANA shall publish a Returned Address Space Report which indicates what resources were returned, by whom and when. The IANA shall publish an Allocations Report on at least a weekly basis which at a minimum indicates what IPv4 address space has been allocated, which RIR received the allocation and when. The IANA shall publish a public report confirming RIR eligibility subsequent to Section 4. 6. No Transfer Rights Address space assigned from the Reclamation Pool is not subject to transfer outside of an ICANN Board adopted globally adopted transfer policy. The definition of Global Transfer Policy for the purpose of this policy is a global policy that has been processed and adopted by ICANN in compliance with the MoU [2] and attachments as agreed to in October 2004 between ICANN and the RIRs. 7. Definitions IANA - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority or it's successor ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers or it's successor RIR - Regional Internet Registry as recognized by ICANN MOU - Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the RIR's IPV4 - Internet Protocol Version Four, the target protocol of this Global Policy 8. References 1. http://www.icann.org/en/general/allocation-remaining-ipv4-space.htm Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space, IANA, Retrieved 27 April 2010 2. http://www.nro.net/documents/aso-mou.html ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) MoU , Retrieved 27 May 2010. ## Thanks again for your time and attention! ~Chris -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org

1 0

Registry - not a policy proposal
by Rob Blokzijl 03 Jun '10

03 Jun '10

[apologies for duplicate mails] Dear RIPE, soon there will be no more IPv4. However, we still have a registry of these addresses. Daniel Karrenberg and myself have produced a document (attached to this mail) which describes what we think the role of this registry should be after the runout of the unallocated IPv4 address space. We will present this document in the Address Policy WG, and would like to invite you to let us know your thoughts. The place for further discussion will be <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Thank you for your attention, Rob Blokzijl

10 10

2010 IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey Now Underway
by Paul Rendek 02 Jun '10

02 Jun '10

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, As announced at RIPE 60 in Prague, GNKS Consult and TNO are working with the RIPE NCC to repeat the 2009 survey on the current and future use of IPv6 throughout the RIPE NCC service region. The IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey is now online, and we encourage all members of the RIPE community to participate: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IPv6deploymentmonitoring2010 The purpose of the survey is to better understand where the community is moving, and what can be done to ensure the Internet community is ready for the widespread adoption of IPv6. As it is mostly the same as the survey carried out in 2009, comparison of progress will be possible. In addition, RIPE community participation will contribute to a better understanding of the global situation, as APNIC, AfriNIC and LACNIC will also send out the request to participate to their communities. We encourage all organisations in the RIPE NCC service region to participate in this survey, which we hope will establish a comprehensive view of present IPv6 penetration and future plans for IPv6 deployment. The survey is composed of 23 questions and can be completed in about 15 minutes. For those without IPv6 allocations or assignments, or who have not yet deployed IPv6, the questions will be fewer in number. The survey will close on 1 July 2010. Results of the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey will be presented and discussed at RIPE 61, which will be held 15-19 November in Rome, Italy. Results will also be published on IPv6 Act Now: http://ipv6actnow.org Please provide your name and contact information on the survey form if you wish to receive the draft survey analysis when available. Please also indicate whether you are willing to share additional data with the TNO and GNKS Consult IPv6 Deployment Monitoring team. 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

2009-01 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries)
by Filiz Yilmaz 02 Jun '10

02 Jun '10

PDP Number: 2009-01 Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2009-01 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis for it at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-01.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2009-01-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 June 2010. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
by Sander Steffann 11 May '10

11 May '10

Hello working group, A document was distributed today at the RIPE 60 meeting in Prague. The document highlights the differences between IPv4 PI and IPv6 PI and the trends that have been observed. The document provides food for thought, and there will be a discussion in the second slot (11:00 - 12:30) of the Address Policy Working Group session tomorrow. Facilities for remote participation are available at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/index.php?home=remote. This discussion will of course be followed up on this mailing list. Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

11 29

New IPv4 blocks allocated to RIPE NCC
by Andrea Cima 11 May '10

11 May '10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [Apologies for duplicate mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address ranges 31/8 and 176/8 from the IANA in May 2010. We will begin allocating from these ranges in the near future. The minimum allocation size for these two /8s has been set at /21. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our web site at: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-ncc-managed-address-space.html> Additionally, please note that three "pilot" prefixes will be announced from each /8. The prefixes are: 31.0.0.0/16 31.1.0.0/21 31.1.24.0/24 176.0.0.0/16 176.1.0.0/21 176.1.24.0/24 They all originate in AS12654. More information on this "pilot" activity is available in the draft document "De-Bogonising New Address Blocks" which can be found at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-351.html> Kind regards, Andrea Cima Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkvpJ1QACgkQXOgsmPkFrjMChQCgxw7pxH6OgI0nQuwdhdOIWRp7 ig4An0QaM80yGTPN603EvW7dXkrUNQ/g =4M3X -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

AW: [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
by Marcus.Gerdon 06 May '10

06 May '10

Richard, > A /64 in IPv6 is what a single address is for IPv4. I don't agree on this when talking about connecting servers. Place a server in a segment and assign it's interface an IPv4 address 192.168.0.1/24 and an IPv6 address FC00::1/64. Will you (be able to) address another server in the same segment using addresses within those prefixes? Can you get that server connected in IPv4 deploying 192.168.0.0/32 onto its interface? The relevant part here what I meant by 'single address' is the number of addresses configured onto those customers server. Indepent of doing v4 oder v6 you'll configured 'a single address' at the server to get it connected. I agree with you when talking i.e. about DSL lines. Instead of the typical /32 assigned for IPv4 you'll put a /64 on the line. But that's another topic talking about lines instead of servers. As said this were quickly noted items that came to my mind. For the last case of a /64 segment dedicated to one customer I'm not sure but might agree with you that as this would be the equivalent to the DSL line's example. As long as you don't route another /64 (or whatever size) onto customer equipment addressed in this segment. But it's definitely hard to tell where to draw the line. regards, Marcus ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon(a)versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Hai Cheng, Joachim Bellinghoven ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 / AS29610 | MG3031-RIPE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Richard Hartmann [mailto:richih.mailinglist@gmail.com] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Mai 2010 10:50 > An: Marcus.Gerdon > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE > Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space > > On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 08:42, Marcus.Gerdon > <Marcus.Gerdon(a)versatel.de> wrote: > > > - single address for connecting a customers server > > => PI > > - contained /64 (!) segment (i.e. dedicated vlan for a > customers rack) > > => I think somewhat of a border case, but tend to *no* PI > > A /64 in IPv6 is what a single address is for IPv4. > This is obviously a _very_ reduced view for the sake of my > argument, but > I think doing this is valid, in this case. > > > Richard >

4 3

RE: 2010-01 New Policy Proposal (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies)
by Jamie Stallwood 06 May '10

06 May '10

Hi RIPE, Today's discussion was interesting and concern was raised about commercials being able to get all or most of the address space set aside in the proposal, and about unfair commercial advantage. My thoughts as a paragraph, which I know is rushed and woolly and only intended as a discussion point: 3.5 Use by Commercial Organizations Temporary address space will not be assigned by the RIPE NCC to any commercial organization where such an allocation: * Is not shown to be for a research, development or testing project relevant to an operational business of that organization * Does not seek to provide a "benefit", e.g. through published work in academic or industrial journals, or * Is unable to demonstrate a fair inclusion policy for other commercial organizations to contribute to, or benefit from, the project. [Address allocation is at the RIPE NCCs discretion, but subject to the RIPE NCC Conflict Arbitration Procedure.] Kind regards Jamie Stallwood -- Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Limited Tel: 07795 840385 jamie.stallwood(a)imerja.com -- Imerja Limited Tel: 0870 8611488 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com Registered Office: Paragon House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO Registered Firm No. GB2001527 This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited unless otherwise stated.

3 4