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

RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
by Mark Townsley 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

All, My main goal with supporting 6rd is to see IPv6 deployed by Service Providers, preferably before the onslaught of CGNs leading to RFC1918 Private IPv4 as the new default Internet Access. As such, the fact that we are even having this conversation is rather encouraging. At the moment, 6rd accounts for the largest residential IPv6 Internet deployment to date. It's natural that some SPs are interested in replicating what has shown to work well for a neighboring SP. Not all of them want to go this route, but some do, and I’m thrilled as this very likely means a sooner IPv6 deployment in the world (at least among those SPs who see 6rd as their most viable alternative). I want to underscore here that we are not talking about forever allocating space away to a transition mechanism as was done with the /16 for 6to4, or the /32 for Teredo. Those address spaces will never be used for anything else, ever. The 6rd-related requests are, of course, for allocations to SPs that actually want to deploy IPv6 to their subscriber population in relative short order. One day, I hope that 6rd is not necessary for IPv6 deployment, but for the moment I'm firmly convinced that it is in a number of cases. Perhaps the WG could consider a temporary "early adopter" 6rd policy... e.g., for the next 3-5 years, those SPs that can show that native service is not economically viable for them, but commit that they can and will deploy with 6rd, will be allocated space necessary to get off the ground. At the end of this period, the WG could re-evaluate whether to abandon the more liberal policy in light of the ability to deploy natively at that time. As for the status of 6rd in the IETF, draft-townsley… is expired, and has been replaced by the Softwires Working Group document draft-ietf-softwire-ipv6-6rd-01.txt. Many Thanks, - Mark

13 20

Securing Routing Information
by John Schnizlein 17 Nov '09

17 Nov '09

FYI, here's a report from a group of operators who got together and discussed the issues. http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/resources/docs/routingroundtable_200909.pdf John

1 0

(draft) Minutes from RIPE 59 are now online
by Gert Doering 16 Nov '09

16 Nov '09

Dear APWG participants, the (draft) minutes of the APWG meeting at the RIPE meeting in Lisbon are now online: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r59-minutes.html If you have been at the meeting, please check that everything is as you remember (so we can declare the minutes final at RIPE60), and let us know if something needs changing. If you have NOT been at the meeting, please feel free to read up what we have discussed. We have made a few decisions at the meeting, how to deal with ongoing issues, and I will announce these individually over the next weeks. A big thanks goes to the minute takers from the RIPE NCC! Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 144438 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

Andrea Borgato
by Manfredo Miserocchi 05 Nov '09

05 Nov '09

Dear all, I've just received a phone call saying that Andrea isn't with us any more. For those who didn't know him, he was a real RIPE Community man for a long time, co-chairing this WG too. Friends can contact me directly (mis(a)wari.net) Thanks Manfredo Si precisa che le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio sono riservate e ad uso esclusivo del destinatario. Qualora il presente messaggio Le fosse pervenuto per errore, La invitiamo ad eliminarlo senza copiarlo ed a non inoltrarlo a terzi, dandocene gentilmente comunicazione. Grazie. You are hereby informed that this message contains confidential informations intended for the addressee's use only. If yu're not the addressee and have received this message by mistake, please delete it and immediately notify us. You may not copy or disseminate this message to anyone. Thank you.

1 0

Andrea Borgato
by Manfredo Miserocchi 05 Nov '09

05 Nov '09

Dear all, I've just received a phone call saying that Andrea isn't with us any more. For those who didn't know him, he was a real RIPE Community man for a long time, co-chairing this WG too. Friends can contact me directly. Thanks Manfredo Si precisa che le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio sono riservate e ad uso esclusivo del destinatario. Qualora il presente messaggio Le fosse pervenuto per errore, La invitiamo ad eliminarlo senza copiarlo ed a non inoltrarlo a terzi, dandocene gentilmente comunicazione. Grazie. You are hereby informed that this message contains confidential informations intended for the addressee's use only. If yu're not the addressee and have received this message by mistake, please delete it and immediately notify us. You may not copy or disseminate this message to anyone. Thank you.

1 0

2009-03 Last Call for Comments (Run Out Fairly)
by Ingrid Wijte 29 Oct '09

29 Oct '09

PDP Number: 2009-03 Run Out Fairly Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2009-03 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03.html Please note that we have also updated the proposal to version two. This new version has some minor textual changes, clarifying the intent of paragraph 6.3. Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 26 November 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Details regarding the progress of 2007-01 Phase 2 implementation?
by David Monosov 27 Oct '09

27 Oct '09

Dear address-policy-wg, As phase 2 of the implementation of 2007-01 is well underway and gradually approaching its conclusion, it might be both interesting and beneficial to see some details about the success of this effort so far. Could RIPE NCC furnish the following data at their earliest convenience for the benefit of this work group, and if workload permits, provide monthly updates until phase 2 is complete? - Number and % of direct assignments marked by LIRs as "My End User". - Number and % of direct assignments marked by LIRs as "Not My End User". - Number and % of direct assignments marked by LIRs as "My Infrastructure". - Number and % of direct assignments marked by LIRs as "My End User" for which contracts and registration information were provided but are not yet processed. - Number and % of direct assignments marked by LIRs as "My End User" for which contracts and registration information were provided and subsequently approved by RIPE NCC. - Number and % of direct assignments marked by LIRs as "My End User" for which contracts and registration information were provided and subsequently rejected by RIPE NCC. - Number and % of direct assignments which fall under the scope of 2007-01 phase 2 which remain completely untreated. This data should provide some insight about the challenges that further implementation phases will entail, and create an opportunity for the community to address such challenges on the policy level in a timely manner if required. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov

4 6

Allocations/assignements statistics ?
by Bernard Dugas 24 Oct '09

24 Oct '09

Dear Colleagues, To analyse the use of IPV4 currently, i need to have the number and size of IPV4 prefixes, PA allocated and PI assigned, and ASN, linked to the 5 membership categories. It should be consistent with other data avalaible, meaning that snapshot of 20090930 would be optimal. Thanks a lot, Best regards, -- __Bernard DUGAS ______________________________________________________

2 2

RIPE staff vs Court
by Max Tulyev 24 Oct '09

24 Oct '09

Hello! Today I just got a strange letter from RIPE staff. I didn't saw anything like that before. They told me about a ten of networks registered through our LIR. All these networks have changed admin-c and tech-c to other country, and routed through one server on that country. Based on this, RIPE man sent the notification about reclamation of that networks, as "that seems to don't be valid anymore." Of course, I immediately contacted my client and asked what's happened. He said they work as usual, but one certain offshore IT company is used to manage their networks. So they changed contact details to that company, as that company is correct contact point in any network questions. And traffic flows through the offshore company site as they manage and control it, hosts data, etc. >From one point of view, situation seems very strange. From second - nothing to be not real in practice. So we (first time?) faced with IP reclamation dispute. I don't really know did our clients something bad - perhaps no, as none from these nets listed at Spamhouse ;). I think it is 50/50. May be they told me (and RIPE) truth, may be lied. I can't 100% check it by tools/rights/possibilities I have. But about ten of businesses are on decision of one person that "seems to ...". My strong position is THERE SHOULD BE A COURT DECISION OR OUR COMMUNITY COURT-LIKE STRUCTURE, and only that structure based on court-like controversy process (if not a real court) can make a decision about reclaim any address space. NO WAYS LIKE "IT SEEMS TO...". So now we have: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html#42 My proposal is to change: "Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or violation of RIPE Policy by the End User" to "Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or violation of RIPE Policy by the End User, SUPPORTED BY..." By what? By Dutch Court? By some independent court-like staff? Any ideas? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

6 12

Re: [address-policy-wg] Inet6num requirements in the db
by Arkley, Patrick 13 Oct '09

13 Oct '09

I'm fine with that. Thanks. / Patrick Arkley ** sent from mobile device ** ----- Original Message ----- From: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> To: Arkley, Patrick Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Tue Oct 13 09:29:31 2009 Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Inet6num requirements in the db Hi, there's two parallel "inet6num registration" discussions going on at the same time - let me respond to this one first, because it's a bit easier. On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 01:52:07PM +0200, Arkley, Patrick wrote: > I seem to recall from the RIPE meeting that Axel talked about the RIPE > database as a valuable source of information. Also other organisations > thinks it is a valuable and trustworthy source. It is also a very easy > way of finding out the most likely users (at least one step down stream > from the LIR) of a specific IP-range. > > But how come there is no requirement to add end-user objects for IPv6? > Only the LIR's allocations are required. If we want to continue the work > that has been done for IPv4 I think we need end-user objects for IPv6 as > well. Regarding end-user registrations in the RIPE DB, there are a few conflicting interests to balance: - finding someone "who can make it stop" in case of net-abuse - knowing the end user - protection of personal data for private users - documenting that the network resources are properly used The crucial one is balancing the first one vs. the third one. For private users, there really is no point in having the contact data of the end customer in the database - because if they get some angry e-mails or phone calls from someone who is just now being attacked from their PC, the chance is very high that this end user has no idea whatsoever to do about it. So the best point of contact in that case might be the ISP, who knows the customer, knows whom to call, and how to bring the message "your 0wn3d" across. Now, if there is not much sense in having that data around (because it won't help), EU data protection requires that we don't store it in the first place... Now, for enterprise customers, or multi-level ISP re-seller structures, the question of "whom to contact" and responsibility for abuse handling is different again - so for these, registering the inet6num: objects makes very much sense, and is perfectly fine according to data protection laws (because there is an operational purpose of storing the data). There has been long discussions about this whole topic, mostly taking place in the database working group, and this is the resulting compromise: - you *can* store the end user objects in the RIPE DB, if it makes sense - you don't *have* to store them (in a publically visible database), if it does not make sense - the data needs to be made available to the RIPE NCC, so that for additional allocations, the usage ratio of your allocation can be verified - but that can be in a private DB only accessible to the NCC. So - basically this means "the contact of last resort is the LIR, and if they are not publishing end-user contact data, they (need to!) take responsibility for handling all issues relating to that network block". I assume that this answer is not exactly what you have hoped for, but I think that this should at least clarify the reasoning a bit. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 141055 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 Verizon Sweden AB - registrerat i Sverige med organisationsnummer 556489-1009– huvudkontorets adress: Armégatan 38, Box 4127, 171 04 Solna, Sverige

1 0