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

HD Ratio for IPv4
by Kelaidi Christina 11 Nov '05

11 Nov '05

My company believes that the proposal for the calculation of the HD ratio to measure IPv4 usage is a an improvement to the existing one and we would like to support once again this new policy proposal. Christina Kelaidi GD Regulatory Affairs OTE S.A. 99 Kifissias Av. 15124 Maroussi Greece tel: +30 2106117205 e-mail: kelaidi(a)ote.gr

1 0

RE: address-policy-wg digest, Vol 1 #315 - 2 msgs - Checking details of assignments
by Fred Langford 08 Nov '05

08 Nov '05

Hi, More of a general question but will RIPE be authenticating the details (address, abuse etc) of the IP assignments to ensure the integrity of the database? Regards Fred Langford Fred Langford Internet Research Analyst Internet Watch Foundation t +44 (0)1223 237700 www.iwf.org.uk -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net Sent: 08 November 2005 11:00 To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: address-policy-wg digest, Vol 1 #315 - 2 msgs Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Fwd: 2005-01 One Week to End of Discussion Period: HD Ratio for IPv4 (Hans Petter Holen) 2. Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else? (Pekka Savola) --__--__-- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:21:31 +0100 From: Hans Petter Holen <hph(a)oslo.net> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: 2005-01 One Week to End of Discussion Period: HD Ratio for IPv4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050809070908030505050308 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear WG, At the meeting in Amsterdam I requested participation from the signatories to the ETNO letter. As chair of the wg I would like to understand from the participants of this WG, representing the signatories to the ETNO position - why you have chosen not to participate in the discussion in the Address Policy WG but rather develop this position in another organization. I will not move this proposal to last call before this clarified to the Address Policy working group. Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen Address Policy WG. --------------050809070908030505050308 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name*0="[address-policy-wg] ETNO comments on AD ratio for IPv4 addresses"; name*1=" allocation.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename*0="[address-policy-wg] ETNO comments on AD ratio for IPv4 addre"; filename*1="sses allocation.eml" Return-Path: <address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net> Received: from smtp220.tiscali.dk (smtp220.tiscali.dk [62.79.79.114]) by i.dont.no (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8GD3O9Z028063 for <hph(a)dont.no>; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:03:24 -0100 Received: from cpmail.dk.tiscali.com (mail.tiscali.dk [212.54.64.159]) by smtp220.tiscali.dk (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8GD3OPS091657 for <hph(a)dont.no>; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:03:24 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net) Delivered-To: hpholen(a)tiscali.no Received: from postboy.ripe.net (193.0.0.201) by cpmail.dk.tiscali.com (6.7.018) id 412F265D0014F272 for hpholen(a)tiscali.no; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:03:22 +0200 Received: from postboy.ripe.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postboy.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12CB179C2D; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:59:02 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: address-policy-wg(a)lists.ripe.net Received: by postboy.ripe.net (Postfix, from userid 8) id 9C0C079D57; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:01:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from postman.ripe.net (postman.ripe.net [193.0.0.199]) by postboy.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF5479D56 for <address-policy-wg(a)postboy.ripe.net>; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:01:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: by postman.ripe.net (Postfix, from userid 8) id 8A7D34FC46; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:01:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from etno.be (138.206-78-194.adsl-fix.skynet.be [194.78.206.138]) by postman.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE554E26F for <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:01:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from etnodebecker ([192.168.1.1]) by etno.be (etno.be [192.168.1.253]) (MDaemon.PRO.v6.8.4.R) with ESMTP id 44-md50000000012.tmp for <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:01:04 +0200 Reply-To: <debecker(a)etno.be> From: "Debecker J.L." <debecker(a)etno.be> To: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Cc: <gerd.wiedenhaupt(a)t-systems.com>, <alain.bidron(a)francetelecom.com>, "Michael Bartholomew" <bartholomew(a)etno.be> Organization: ETNO Message-ID: <001101c49bd4$126111e0$0101a8c0(a)etno.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Processed: etno.be, Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:01:04 +0200 (not processed: message from valid local sender) X-Lookup-Warning: HELO/EHLO lookup on etnodebecker does not match 192.168.1.1 X-MDRemoteIP: 192.168.1.1 X-Return-Path: debecker(a)etno.be X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ** X-RIPE-Spam-Status: U 0.499986 / 1.8 / 0.0 / disabled X-RIPE-Signature: 80201789b55f74e2c7bf4670a81825e0 Subject: [address-policy-wg] ETNO comments on AD ratio for IPv4 addresses allocation Sender: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net Errors-To: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net X-BeenThere: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Developing policies relating to the management and registration of Internet addresses and routing identifiers <address-policy-wg.ripe.net> List-Post: <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> X-RIPE-Lists: Developing policies relating to the management and registration of Internet addresses and routing identifiers <address-policy-wg.ripe.net> List-Subscribe: <http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg>, <mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net?subject=subscribe> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg>, <mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Help: <mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net?subject=help> List-Archive: <http://www.ripe.net/mailman/private/address-policy-wg/> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:01:01 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by i.dont.no id i8GD3O9Z028063 RIPE Dear Sir, Madam, ETNO, representing 41 major telecom operators from 34 European countries, has studied the proposal to replace the fixed utilisation criteria of 80% in IPv4 address space allocation, by criteria based on AD (Assignment Density) ratio. Our conclusions are formulated in the attached Expert Contribution EC064. The document is the unanimous opinion of ETNO Members represented in the ETNO Frequency Management Working Group and has been endorsed by the ETNO Board. We are all prepared to discuss these comments in more detail and whenever useful. ETNO will be pleased to contribute to the further development of Europe's views on the issue. Best regards, Michael Bartholomew ETNO Director ------------------------- September 2004 ETNO Expert Contribution on AD ratio for IPv4 addresses allocation Executive Summary ETNO (1) has considered the proposal to replace the fixed utilisation criteria of 80% in IPv4 address space allocation, by a criteria based on AD (Assignment Density) ratio. ETNO strongly support the proposal and suggest selecting an AD ratio of 0.966. ETNO further suggest to the RIRs to monitor the impact of this measure on address consumption and periodically report on it to the addressing community. Background During the RIPE 48 meeting in Amsterdam, a proposal was presented by APNIC to replace the fixed utilisation criteria of 80% to request additional IPv4 addresses blocks, by a criteria based on "AD ratio" value. This ratio value corresponds to a logarithmic scale and corresponds to a percentage utilisation, which decreases as the size of the address space grows. The presentation can be downloaded at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-ap-hd-ratio.p df The decision was made to take the discussion to the RIPE Address-policy working group mailing list and to ask for some feed back from the community. As most European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association 1(ETNO) members are large or extra-large Local Internet Registries in Europe, representing an important part of these categories in the RIPE region, this proposal was considered and analysed with attention. Findings 1- This proposal fairly takes into account addressing hierarchies used in large and extra-large registries and introduces a useful level of flexibility for those registries. 2- The Local Internet Registries using the 80% criteria may continue to do so and will not be impacted by the new policy. 3- Complicated calculation or administrative burden should be easily avoided to registries choosing this method using simple chart or software through LIR portal. 4- As analysed by APNIC, the impact on address consumption is limited to a maximum around 20% and can be easily controlled and monitored using a rather conservative approach (AD ratio of 0.966). 5- This impact can be partly counterbalanced by reducing the number of small and extra-small registries whose existence is only justified by management overhead of large registries with current 80% criteria, and has a positive impact on address aggregation. 6- No additional impact on registrations is seen in RIPE region, as infrastructure assignments are already registered in the database. Conclusion ETNO strongly supports this proposal and suggest selecting a conservative AD ratio value of 0.966. ETNO also suggest to the RIRs to monitor the use of this facility and its impact on address consumption, and periodically report on it to the addressing community. (1) The European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association is representing 41 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 ETNO Expert Contribution EC064 (2004/09) --------------050809070908030505050308-- --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 03:43:59 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola <pekkas(a)netcore.fi> To: Andreas =?ISO-8859-1?Q?B=E4=DF=2FDenic?= <baess(a)denic.de> cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net, ipv6-wg-admin(a)ripe.net, Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi(a)niif.hu> Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else? This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --1589707168-1824570081-1131332849=:12767 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1; FORMAT=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511070508011.12767(a)netcore.fi> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Andreas Bäß/Denic wrote: >>>> 4. Allocate /48 to primary hu DNS server that is globally routable? >>>> Are there similar to /48 from 2001:0500::/30 in RIPE region? >>>> >>>> - I think this is the cleanest solution. >>>> >>>> Can we discuss this issue on the working group or mailing lists? >>>> >>>> I saw a proposal: >>>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-2.html >>>> >>>> In my opinion this can solve the problem.... > > I have not seen any discussions that think it is a bad idea to assign > several network resources to TLD administrators which will enable them > to operate their nameservers according to RFC3258. > > When we have reviewed the discussions we felt that your objection > against the proposal was because of the size of the assignment. I'm > planning to submit revised proposal with a reduced prefix length which > better fits with other assignment policies. If you are opposing to the > new proposal I would be glad to know as soon as it is submitted. Yes. Let me clarify my objections: 1) special policy for ccTLDs (if they do not anycast) is not IMHO needed as assignments from (some of the) transits should be enough; 2) special policy for any arbitrary service, if anycast, does not seem justified because it's too open-ended; 3) ccTLD combined with requirement to anycast it appears to be suitably well justified operationally and technically. In addition, a) we have enough address space that allocating a (v6) /32 is not waste. b) I'm strongly opposed to creating any special micro-allocation blocks which is just waiting for getting the worms out hence a). So, I'd say that if the policy proposal is 3) with a (v6) /32, I shouldn't have a problem with it. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings --1589707168-1824570081-1131332849=:12767-- End of address-policy-wg Digest -- This message has been scanned for viruses and potentially harmful content by StreamShield Protector.

1 0

Fwd: 2005-01 One Week to End of Discussion Period: HD Ratio for IPv4
by Hans Petter Holen 07 Nov '05

07 Nov '05

Dear WG, At the meeting in Amsterdam I requested participation from the signatories to the ETNO letter. As chair of the wg I would like to understand from the participants of this WG, representing the signatories to the ETNO position - why you have chosen not to participate in the discussion in the Address Policy WG but rather develop this position in another organization. I will not move this proposal to last call before this clarified to the Address Policy working group. Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen Address Policy WG.

1 0

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