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

RE: [address-policy-wg] Revisiting RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01
by poty＠iiat.ru 04 Dec '08

04 Dec '08

-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Garry Glendown Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 1:59 PM To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Revisiting RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01 ... Speaking of customers - what about customers who aren't an LIR's customers anymore? Can those PI assignments be "redirected" towards either RIPE or the new provider? Or the Enduser himself? Might be hard to come up out of the blue and send a bill over x€ in such a case ... -garry -------------------------- That is the point! There is no way of controlling PIs which have been already issued. Some of them are already routed through other companies and have no relation to the issuer LIR. And there is no mechanism of "returning" these PI assignments and avoid the unfair burdens. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

1 0

Revised 2006-01 set back to Discussion Phase (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
by Ana Matic 03 Dec '08

03 Dec '08

PDP Number: 2006-01 Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2006-01 has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list and during RIPE 56 and 57. We have published the new version (version 4) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 December 2008. Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

18 20

Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2006-01 set back to Discussion Phase (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
by Remco van Mook 25 Nov '08

25 Nov '08

With the comments of Nick in mind I support this proposal. Best, Remco ----- Original Message ----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net <address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Cc: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> Sent: Tue Nov 25 18:20:47 2008 Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2006-01 set back to Discussion Phase (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) Ana Matic wrote: > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments > to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 December 2008. This proposal has improved substantially since v3.0, and it is long overdue. While I support it as-is, I have two comments. - the "temporary" status of the proposal has been changed to permanent. This is a good move, and merely recognition that reclaiming address space is an enormously difficult challenge, even if assigned on a temporary basis. - while a requirement for multihoming is useful, it should be made clear during implementation that this is not necessarily a requirement for multihoming using ASNs and BGP on the public Internet (however we care to define that term). Private interconnection to third parties is also a fully legitimate justification for assignment of provider independent number resources. Nick 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, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.

1 0

2007-05 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (IPv6 ULA-Central)
by Ana Matic 25 Nov '08

25 Nov '08

PDP Number: 2007-05 IPv6 ULA-Central Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2007-05, "IPv6 ULA-Central" has been withdrawn. The proposer decided to withdraw this proposal and wait for the IETF process on the subject to conclude. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC Asst. Policy Development Officer

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
by Greg L. 18 Nov '08

18 Nov '08

Current IPv4 already provides more advantage to ccTLD and gTLD with IPv4 /24 prefix allocations for BGP anycast than for other business entities that would like to get /24 prefix for BGP anycast DNS deployments. I don't see a reason why more resources should be allocated to a specific group/entities named under "Critical infrastructure" category that still compete with businesses that are unable to get /24 BGP anycast assignment for DNS solutions from Ripe. This is not fair (it was a bit fair when gTLD and ccTLD started out 5+ years ago). This is why many European companies prefer Arin's IP space. Welcome to Arin! At 18:09 2008.11.17.t Cá', you wrote: >Ondrej, > in the light of the comments on my proposal for ENUM anycast > assignments discussed in Dubai, I was planning to write a revised policy > proposal to go through PDP, I will be taking action on this as soon as > the minutes/webcast from Dubai are available. I think it's safe to say we > are working towards the same/similar goal and I think it's important that > we don't both do the same work. I will have a first draft of my proposal > here in the next couple of weeks. > >Regards > >Brett Carr > >Nominet UK > > >On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ondøej Surý ><<mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz>ondrej.sury(a)nic.cz> wrote: >Hello everybody, > >I would like to post unformal proposal before writing >official policy modification proposal (and/or having >discussion tomorrow on Open Hour). > >We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modified >to allow /24 *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* to >gTLD/ccTLD. > >First reason behind this is that one PI is not really >enough and it's blocking us to deploy more DNS servers >and make our TLD service more reliable. > >Second reason is that if we deploy more Anycasted DNS >servers we could keep (or drop down) number of NS records >for TLD, so we could manage to keep DNS reply size low >even with DNSSEC. > >And last, but not least, it would be good to keep this >synchronized with other regions (see [1],[2]). Note: >we may also extend the list of requestors to: >Root DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, IANA, RIRs. >Which I think is reasonable list. > >1. ><http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2>http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2 >2. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#3-4-1 > >If there is at least some consensus, I am willing to >write official policy change proposal. > >Ondrej >-- > Ondøej Surý > technický øeditel/Chief Technical Officer > ----------------------------------------- > CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry > Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic > mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz <http://nic.cz/>http://nic.cz/ > <mailto:sip%3Aondrej.sury@nic.cz>sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 > mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 > ----------------------------------------- > >

4 3

Re: [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
by Greg L. 17 Nov '08

17 Nov '08

Yes, correct.. my main point was not to block any proposals, I just wanted to comment that PI assignations must be more open to businesses that require it for BGP anycasting (multihoming etc) in Ripe region as it is in Arin region. My apologies for the comments that I sent in reply to your emails - probably a wrong discussion/thread. I just remember the problems we had and how easy it was when we moved our client to Arin IP space. However, I believe http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html "PI Assignment Size" proposal is aimed to solve the problem with PI allocation of /24 when routing is the major issue. This is something that Arin already has in their policy and works like a charm. Unfortunately, I haven't heard much about this proposal lately - it's been in "Awaiting Decision from WG Chair " status. Greg At 21:46 2008.11.17.t Cá', OndÅej SurÃ½ wrote: >2008/11/17 Greg L. <bgp2(a)linuxadmin.org>: > > One /24 prefix for TLD's DNS should be more than enough anyway. > >Why do you think so? > > > If you are hosting ccTLD or gTLD it shouldn't automatically qualify you > > for "Critical infrastructure". A small country with 200 ccTLD domains > > registered is not more critical than some business hosting 120,000 > > .com/.net domains (a DNS service not ccTLD or gTLD). Maybe a high > > reliability and uptime for this company is more critical to be in business > > than a small ccTLD with just 2 million of DNS queries. > >I agree here with you. My proposal is same as ARINs policy that CI MAY get >more then one prefix and it should be up to RIPE NCC hostmaster decision >if they allow TLD to get more then one prefix. Something like a plan >of deployment, etc. - small TLD would not be able to deploy many anycast >nodes around the globe. > > > However, the small ccTLD get's /24 allocated without problems in Ripe > > region, the other company does NOT. > >Again "the other company does NOT" should not be a reason why TLD should not >be able to get more than one prefix. If you don't like current policy change >it or at least try to change it. Blocking reasonable (my POV) proposal just >because you're angry that you had to move to Arin region will get us nowhere. > > > Well I do not care much anyway since we have moved clients to Arin IP space > > and meet all the requirements there and we are happy. > >Alright now you are saying that Arin's policy is good. Maybe you should >started your email conversation with proposal that you would like to see >RIPE policy to allow PI assignments to other businesses as well. > > > I just wanted to comment that /24 prefix for anycast should be more open > > to businesses that meet some other criteria not just ccTLD or gTLD hosting. > >Here we may get to some level of agreement. Constructive proposals are most >welcome. > >Ondrej. >-- > Ondrej Sury > technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer > ----------------------------------------- > CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry > Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic > mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ > sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 > mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 > -----------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
by Greg L. 17 Nov '08

17 Nov '08

At 18:15 2008.11.17.t Cá', B C wrote: >On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Greg L. ><<mailto:bgp2@linuxadmin.org>bgp2(a)linuxadmin.org> wrote: >Current IPv4 already provides more advantage to ccTLD and gTLD with IPv4 >/24 prefix allocations for BGP anycast than for other business entities >that would like to get /24 prefix for BGP anycast DNS deployments. > > I don't see a reason why more resources should be allocated to a > specific group/entities named under "Critical infrastructure" category > that still compete with businesses that are unable to get /24 BGP anycast > assignment for DNS solutions from Ripe. > > >I think that the term Critical Infrastructure speaks for itself really >doesn't it, without scalable and stable DNS deployments at the TLD level >the businesses you refer to would be at risk because of their parents >potential instability. > >I guess it depends on what you define as Critical Infrastructure, I am >just talking about ccTLD/gTLD and ENUM registries/entity getting >allocations for Anycasting their TLD DNS servers, by definition these are >not in competition with businesses who are not in the TLD arena and >therefore I don't believe there is a 'fairness' issue. One /24 prefix for TLD's DNS should be more than enough anyway. If you are hosting ccTLD or gTLD it shouldn't automatically qualify you for "Critical infrastructure". A small country with 200 ccTLD domains registered is not more critical than some business hosting 120,000 .com/.net domains (a DNS service not ccTLD or gTLD). Maybe a high reliability and uptime for this company is more critical to be in business than a small ccTLD with just 2 million of DNS queries. However, the small ccTLD get's /24 allocated without problems in Ripe region, the other company does NOT. Well I do not care much anyway since we have moved clients to Arin IP space and meet all the requirements there and we are happy. I just wanted to comment that /24 prefix for anycast should be more open to businesses that meet some other criteria not just ccTLD or gTLD hosting. > >This is not fair (it was a bit fair when gTLD and ccTLD started out 5+ >years ago). > > >I'm interested to know what has changed in this area in the last 5 years >and why you consider the fairness has changed? Faster pipes, CPU power, better firewalls.... (cheaper HW)... Greg > >This is why many European companies prefer Arin's IP space. Welcome to Arin! > > >Well of course they are free to use ARIN space if they are able to meet >their allocation policies. > >Brett > > > >At 18:09 2008.11.17.t Cá', you wrote: >>Ondrej, >> in the light of the comments on my proposal for ENUM anycast >> assignments discussed in Dubai, I was planning to write a revised policy >> proposal to go through PDP, I will be taking action on this as soon as >> the minutes/webcast from Dubai are available. I think it's safe to say >> we are working towards the same/similar goal and I think it's important >> that we don't both do the same work. I will have a first draft of my >> proposal here in the next couple of weeks. >> >>Regards >> >>Brett Carr >> >>Nominet UK >> >> >>On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ondøej Surý >><<mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz>ondrej.sury(a)nic.cz> wrote: >>Hello everybody, >>I would like to post unformal proposal before writing >>official policy modification proposal (and/or having >>discussion tomorrow on Open Hour). >>We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modified >>to allow /24 *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* to >>gTLD/ccTLD. >>First reason behind this is that one PI is not really >>enough and it's blocking us to deploy more DNS servers >>and make our TLD service more reliable. >>Second reason is that if we deploy more Anycasted DNS >>servers we could keep (or drop down) number of NS records >>for TLD, so we could manage to keep DNS reply size low >>even with DNSSEC. >>And last, but not least, it would be good to keep this >>synchronized with other regions (see [1],[2]). Note: >>we may also extend the list of requestors to: >>Root DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, IANA, RIRs. >>Which I think is reasonable list. >>1. >><http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2>http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2 >> >>2. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#3-4-1 >>If there is at least some consensus, I am willing to >>write official policy change proposal. >>Ondrej >>-- >> Ondøej Surý >> technický øeditel/Chief Technical Officer >> ----------------------------------------- >> CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry >> Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic >> <mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz>mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ >> <mailto:sip%3Aondrej.sury@nic.cz>sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 >> mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 >> ----------------------------------------- >>

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
by Greg L. 17 Nov '08

17 Nov '08

Thanks for your fast reply. To be honest, I haven't seen multiple /24 IPv4 prefixes allocated (legally) to a single entity in Arin region just for DNS BGP Anycast service. In Ripe region you can't get /24 prefix allocated for DNS BGP anycast hosting if you are a normal business (like a DNS service provider who just wants to compete in this business crowd) unless you are gTLD or ccTLD. In Arin region you can get ONE /24 prefix for this purpose... This is why I am harsh with my comments to gTLD and ccTLD owners who now want more than one /24 prefix for DNS hosting in Ripe region... Sorry... Thanks! Greg http://www.linuxadmin.org/ At 19:54 2008.11.17., you wrote: >Greg, 2008/11/17 Greg L. <bgp2(a)linuxadmin.org>: > Current IPv4 already >provides more advantage to ccTLD and gTLD with IPv4 /24 > prefix >allocations for BGP anycast than for other business entities that > would >like to get /24 prefix for BGP anycast DNS deployments. It does not >provide 'more advantage", RIPE policy provides just 'exactly ONE /24 IPv4 >prefix and exactly ONE /48 IPv6 prefix' and it's not enough if you want to >provide reliable infrastructure for TLD. > I don't see a reason why more >resources should be allocated to a specific > group/entities named under >"Critical infrastructure" category that still > compete with businesses >that are unable to get /24 BGP anycast assignment > for DNS solutions from >Ripe. This is not fair (it was a bit fair when gTLD > and ccTLD started >out 5+ years ago). All these other businesses relies on services provided >by ccTLD/gTLD, that's why. ccTLD/gTLD operation is almost as important as >root servers operations. Certainly there are some categories of TLDs >according to number of registered domains, but I would like to avoid a >discussion about how much domain you need to have registered to be allowed >to have /24 anycast prefix. Other reason could be that this would align >RIPE policy with other RIRs policies. > This is why many European >companies prefer Arin's IP space. Welcome to Arin! I am no ARIN policy >expert, but from what I remember there is no special policy for other >businesses in ARIN policy. But there is a special policy for 'critical >infrastructure' and TLD DNS operators is already using that. Now that's >unfair, we are basically punished for being in RIPE region, since you can >get more anycast prefixes from all other RIRs. And please note that most >of European TLDs are unable to move to other regions because of legal >stuff. It's much easier to get legal status in US if you are private >owned then if you are not-for-profit. Ondrej. -- OndÅej SurÃ½ technickÃ½ >Åeditel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- >CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry AmerickÃ¡ 23,120 00 Praha >2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ >sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 >mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 >-----------------------------------------

3 2

Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
by Ondřej Surý 17 Nov '08

17 Nov '08

Hello everybody, I would like to post unformal proposal before writing official policy modification proposal (and/or having discussion tomorrow on Open Hour). We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modified to allow /24 *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* to gTLD/ccTLD. First reason behind this is that one PI is not really enough and it's blocking us to deploy more DNS servers and make our TLD service more reliable. Second reason is that if we deploy more Anycasted DNS servers we could keep (or drop down) number of NS records for TLD, so we could manage to keep DNS reply size low even with DNSSEC. And last, but not least, it would be good to keep this synchronized with other regions (see [1],[2]). Note: we may also extend the list of requestors to: Root DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, IANA, RIRs. Which I think is reasonable list. 1. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2 2. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#3-4-1 If there is at least some consensus, I am willing to write official policy change proposal. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------

6 9

2007-08 Last Call for Comments (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Ana Matic 10 Nov '08

10 Nov '08

PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2007-08 (version 4.0) is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 08 December 2008. Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC

1 0