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

Inet6num requirements in the db
by Arkley, Patrick 13 Oct '09

13 Oct '09

Hi. 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. Maybe there is good reasoning behind this but the explanation I got from the RIPE NCC crew was not satisfactory. Best regards Patrick Arkley Verizon Europe Verizon Sweden AB - registrerat i Sverige med organisationsnummer 556489-1009- huvudkontorets adress: Armegatan 38, Box 4127, 171 04 Solna, Sverige

2 1

Registration of IPv6 DHCPv6-PD pools
by Daniel Roesen 10 Oct '09

10 Oct '09

Hi, the current IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (RIPE-481) states: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-481.html#registration_assignment ======================================================================= 5.5. Registration When an organisation holding an IPv6 address allocation makes IPv6 address assignments, it must register assignment information in a database, accessible by RIRs as appropriate. (Information registered by an RIR/NIR may be replaced by a distributed database for registering address management information in future). Information is registered at the granularity of End Site assignments. [...] ======================================================================= Let's assume a residential eyeball network with $BIGNUM customers provides a dynamic /56 via DHCPv6-PD to each customer by default, from a large pool of /56s. I'm not sure what the implications of above policy is, especially in regards to the last sentence, "Information is registered at the granularity of End Site assignments.". Given that the End Site identity changes dynamically in a relatively high frequency, and considering $BIGNUM in the 6 to 7 figure range, it certainly won't be sensible pumping a $BIGNUM count of /56 inet6nums into the RIPE DB, all with "descr: dynamic end site network". Unfortunately it seems that this is actually required ny the policy though, wether in the RIPE DB or a DB operated by the LIR in question, accessible to the NCC. Providing dynamic networks to end sites instead of only single addresses is something new to the community. I'm looking for clarification on how we're going to handle those kind of deployments in regard of assignment registration. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr(a)cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

3 3

2009-01, Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries
by Filiz Yilmaz 09 Oct '09

09 Oct '09

Dear Colleagues, 2009-01, "Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries" is a global policy proposal. You may remember discussions on it started in all regions around the beginning of 2009. The full text of the proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-01.html AfriNIC, APNIC and LACNIC have reached consensus on the proposal so far. In ARIN, however, a revised text, different to the one in submitted to the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP) and in other regions, was introduced by the ARIN Advisory Council (ARIN AC). Following community discussion at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in April 2009, the ARIN AC was tasked with further editing the text. This situation was reported to the RIPE community at RIPE 58. The RIPE community's feedback at that time was that the ARIN version of the proposal should be considered. Today, the ARIN AC has submitted a revised text for discussion in the ARIN community. You can find the current ARIN version of the proposal at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_3.html For your convenience, the major differences between the original ARIN text, the new ARIN version and the current RIPE version have been summarised below. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC -------------------------------------------- Old ARIN "A. Phase I" Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration. At quarterly intervals, each RIR shall return to the IANA any legacy address space recovered, and may return to the IANA any non-legacy address space recovered, in aggregated blocks of /24 or larger, for inclusion in the recovered IPv4 pool. New ARIN "A. Phase I" Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration and designate any such space for return to the IANA. Each RIR shall at quarterly intervals return any such designated address space to the IANA in aggregated blocks of /24 or larger, for inclusion in the recovered IPv4 pool. RIPE "3.1 Phase I" Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration. Each RIR shall at quarterly intervals return any such recovered address space to the IANA in aggregated blocks of /24 or larger, for inclusion in the recovered IPv4 pool. --------------------------------------------

9 16

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01, Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries
by John Curran 09 Oct '09

09 Oct '09

> it's the tragedy of the americas, a few hudred years of colonialism, > and it goes on. To understand concerns in the ARIN region, I'd recommend that folks read the actual policy text and staff assessment at <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_3.html >. Because this global policy results in significant departure from RFC2050 need-based allocation (with one equal allocation unit per RIR each 6 month period even if less than regional demand), there are challenges of equity that result from mandating the return to the IANA. The reality is that returned address space has been going back to IANA and will continue to do under current practices; see <http://blog.icann.org/2008/02/recovering-ipv4-address-space/ > for more information. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

5 6

Proposal to Remove Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy Implemented
by Nathalie Trenaman 08 Oct '09

08 Oct '09

Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that policy proposal 2000-06,"Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy", has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now ready to accept requests for IPv6 address space under the new policy. This proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html The updated "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-481.html The following FAQ has also been updated to reflect this policy implementation: http://www.ripe.net/info/faq/rs/ipv6.html Regards, Nathalie Trenaman Registration Services RIPE NCC

1 0

Legal advice on final /8 policies
by Nigel Titley 06 Oct '09

06 Oct '09

Folks, The RIPE NCC has taken legal advice on the various final /8 policies viz-a-viz EU competition policy. I attach a copy of the advice for your delight and edification. Executive summary: don't panic! Nigel

1 0

RIPE-471 and suballocations
by Hank Nussbacher 06 Oct '09

06 Oct '09

I have been looking over RIPE-471 section 9: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ipv4-policies.html#9 and noticed that only some "status" categories are listed as "Sub-allocations cannot be made from this type of address space". Therefore I would have assumed that any status not listed as "Sub-allocations cannot be made from this type of address space" would allow sub-allocations. That is incorrect - for example - ASSIGNED PI does not allow sub-allocations. Can the doc please updated so it reflects correctly the s/w? Thanks, Hank

2 1

how to change ASN
by Kamil Semavi 06 Oct '09

06 Oct '09

Hello guys, I want to change ASN of my whole subnet. How can I do it ? Thanks K.

1 0

AW: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01, Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries
by Marcus.Gerdon 05 Oct '09

05 Oct '09

I don't think the situation's that different. I case ARIN's going to adopt the '*may* return to IANA' version I definitely see no sense in any other RIR implementing a *must*. Quite to the contrary. In this part I've to somewhat agree with Randy and unfortunately have to raise the question why we should return any addresses to IANA if ARIN decides to keep everything for themselves (with quite a bunch of legacy /8's being handled there). Marcus > Exactly. And that part of the policy is still common. So even if ARIN > changes the conditions under which they decide to return addresses to > the pool for the common good, the policy can still go forward for > adoption as a global policy. Of course the other RIRs might > decide that > ARIN's stance changes their minds on whether to adopt this > policy, but > that is a different situation. > > Nigel > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Implementation details 2009-06 and 2009-08
by Ingrid Wijte 30 Sep '09

30 Sep '09

Dear Colleagues, In my previous emails regarding the two accepted policy proposals (2009-06 and 2009-08) I overlooked to add information regarding approximate implementation timelines. We expect to be able to implement 2009-06 (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) within one month and 2009-08 (IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs) within three months. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0