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

RE: [address-policy-wg] Is the time for conservation over?
by Michel Py 27 Oct '03

27 Oct '03

> Andre Oppermann wrote: > The problem with IPv6 is that it doesn't fix any problems. When > IPv6 was engineered it was done with (from today's perspective) > wrong assumptions about the goals to achieve. Think about > multihoming for IPv6 which is currently not possible (except > for ISPs). And much more stuff on the operational side. Much agree with this. Michel.

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Exhaustion
by Mark Hands 27 Oct '03

27 Oct '03

Magic :-) Thanks everyone..... Mark Hands ntl: Hook Senior Data Planning Engineer t: 01256 752624 m: 07866 572314 e: mark.hands(a)ntl.com -----Original Message----- From: Michael.Dillon(a)radianz.com [mailto:Michael.Dillon@radianz.com] Sent: 27 October 2003 13:35 To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Exhaustion >I am trying to get hold of accurate, up-top-date figures showing me how much >IPv4 space there is left, and how long that is predicted to last. >I cannot find any up-to-date presentations, charts or reports on RIPE, ARIN, >ICANN or IANA. >Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place....can someone help me please. Check the latest ARIN newsletter here http://www.arin.net/announcements/20031008.html available in PDF format. The article on exhaustion is by Geoff Huston who periodically posts article on the topic here http://www.potaroo.net/ispcolumn/ and here http://www.potaroo.net/papers.html Note the reference to RIPE 46 at that last URL. In general RIPE, ARIN and APNIC meetings are a good way to keep up to date on this and other addressing issues. In the ARIN region the trend of IP address consumption continues its slow downward slide and the policy trend continues towards making it easier for smaller entities to receive blocks of IP addresses direct from the RIR. In general, I think RIPE members on this list would find it useful to keep track of the ARIN meetings and their outcomes. There was a meeting last week in Chicago http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XII/index.html and the agenda page has links to most of the presentations. The minutes should be up on the site in a week or so. Policy outcomes take a while to be announced because of the need for Board of Trustees ratification. Note that I am *NOT* suggesting that RIPE policy should be synchronised in any way with ARIN policy. I believe that regions need to make policy that works in their own political, economic and social climates. However, it is useful to be aware of the context in other regions when making policy because sometimes good ideas pop up elsewhere first. --Michael Dillon located in London but getting addresses from ARIN The contents of this email and any attachments are sent for the personal attention of the addressee(s) only and may be confidential. If you are not the intended addressee, any use, disclosure or copying of this email and any attachments is unauthorised - please notify the sender by return and delete the message. Any representations or commitments expressed in this email are subject to contract. ntl Group Limited

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Exhaustion
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 27 Oct '03

27 Oct '03

>I am trying to get hold of accurate, up-top-date figures showing me how much >IPv4 space there is left, and how long that is predicted to last. >I cannot find any up-to-date presentations, charts or reports on RIPE, ARIN, >ICANN or IANA. >Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place....can someone help me please. Check the latest ARIN newsletter here http://www.arin.net/announcements/20031008.html available in PDF format. The article on exhaustion is by Geoff Huston who periodically posts article on the topic here http://www.potaroo.net/ispcolumn/ and here http://www.potaroo.net/papers.html Note the reference to RIPE 46 at that last URL. In general RIPE, ARIN and APNIC meetings are a good way to keep up to date on this and other addressing issues. In the ARIN region the trend of IP address consumption continues its slow downward slide and the policy trend continues towards making it easier for smaller entities to receive blocks of IP addresses direct from the RIR. In general, I think RIPE members on this list would find it useful to keep track of the ARIN meetings and their outcomes. There was a meeting last week in Chicago http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XII/index.html and the agenda page has links to most of the presentations. The minutes should be up on the site in a week or so. Policy outcomes take a while to be announced because of the need for Board of Trustees ratification. Note that I am *NOT* suggesting that RIPE policy should be synchronised in any way with ARIN policy. I believe that regions need to make policy that works in their own political, economic and social climates. However, it is useful to be aware of the context in other regions when making policy because sometimes good ideas pop up elsewhere first. --Michael Dillon located in London but getting addresses from ARIN

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Exhaustion
by Axel Pawlik 27 Oct '03

27 Oct '03

At 27/10/2003 15:09 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >Geoff Huston gave an excellent plenary presentation at RIPE46: >http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/plenary.html >but unfortunately the presentation is not available on the RIPE meeting site. A good article by Geoff has appeared in ARIN today, see http://www.arin.net/newsletter/2003_Third_Qtr.pdf regards, Axel

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Exhaustion
by Hank Nussbacher 27 Oct '03

27 Oct '03

At 01:07 PM 27-10-03 +0000, Mark Hands wrote: Geoff Huston gave an excellent plenary presentation at RIPE46: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/plenary.html but unfortunately the presentation is not available on the RIPE meeting site. -Hank >Hello all, > >I am trying to get hold of accurate, up-top-date figures showing me how much >IPv4 space there is left, and how long that is predicted to last. >I cannot find any up-to-date presentations, charts or reports on RIPE, ARIN, >ICANN or IANA. >Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place....can someone help me please. > >Thanks very much, >Mark Hands >ntl: >Senior Data Planning Engineer > > >The contents of this email and any attachments are sent for the personal >attention >of the addressee(s) only and may be confidential. If you are not the intended >addressee, any use, disclosure or copying of this email and any attachments is >unauthorised - please notify the sender by return and delete the message. Any >representations or commitments expressed in this email are subject to >contract. > >ntl Group Limited

2 1

IPv4 Exhaustion
by Mark Hands 27 Oct '03

27 Oct '03

Hello all, I am trying to get hold of accurate, up-top-date figures showing me how much IPv4 space there is left, and how long that is predicted to last. I cannot find any up-to-date presentations, charts or reports on RIPE, ARIN, ICANN or IANA. Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place....can someone help me please. Thanks very much, Mark Hands ntl: Senior Data Planning Engineer The contents of this email and any attachments are sent for the personal attention of the addressee(s) only and may be confidential. If you are not the intended addressee, any use, disclosure or copying of this email and any attachments is unauthorised - please notify the sender by return and delete the message. Any representations or commitments expressed in this email are subject to contract. ntl Group Limited

1 0

NRO MoU document revised and signed 24 Oct 2003
by Axel Pawlik 27 Oct '03

27 Oct '03

Dear Colleagues, After considering all comments received, the RIR Boards have developed a further revision of the proposed NRO MoU, as attached here. This document has been signed by the RIR CEOs during the ARIN members meeting in Chicago, USA, at 0900 24 October 2003 (local time). "The Number Resource Organization" document can be found on the RIPE NCC at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/nro-2003-09-241-1.html The RIR Boards would like to stress that they will continue working together with the community to refine the NRO's functioning. I would like to thank the community for their support in this process. Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE NCC Dubai Meeting, Dec. 2003 - Reminder: Hotel Reservations
by Membership Liason Officer 20 Oct '03

20 Oct '03

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Middle East, will be held 7 - 9 December 2003 at the Metropolitan Palace Hotel, Dubai, U.A.E. The meeting will focus on Internet Resource management issues specific to the Middle East. HOTEL RESERVATIONS: The RIPE NCC has arranged for a block of rooms to be held for meeting attendees at the Metropolitan Palace Hotel and the Metropolitan Hotel Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai. There are a limited number of rooms available, so we strongly suggest you book early to avoid disappointment. For more information about these hotels, and to reserve a room, please see: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/regional-meetings/dubai-2003/hotel-information.… In addition to your hotel accommodation please remember to register for the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Middle East, at: http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/dubai-reg Attendance to the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting is open and free of charge. However, attendees are responsible for covering their own travel and accommodation costs. Any further questions about the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Middle East, can be sent directly to: <contact(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Sabrina Wilmot Membership Liaison Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised Draft Document for review: "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region"
by Janos Zsako 19 Oct '03

19 Oct '03

> From leo(a)ripe.net Sat Oct 18 21:41:55 2003 Dear Leo, > >>> "An AW can be applied to an End User network once per 12-month period. > >>> This means an LIR can make more than one assignment to an End User > >>> _in_any_such_12_months'_period, but the total amount of address space > >> I think this should be added to improve clarity but... > >> > >>> cannot be larger than the LIR's AW. An LIR's AW is considered unused > >>>on > >>> the anniversary of the first (?!? I would think _last_) assignment to > >>> the End User._After_the_exhaustion_of_the_AW, the LIR may only assign > >>> additional addresses to the same End User after approval from the RIPE > >>> NCC. > >>> > >>> (In one of the sentences above I have the impression that first should > >>> be changed to last - did I misunderstood something?) > >> ... I think the ambiguity in the wording here reflects the > >>ambiguity in the policy. We could update the wording to use the word > >>"last" but that would make the policy more strict than it is at the > >>moment. At some point it would be useful to review and rationalise > >>the current AW policy. It is fairly complicated to document and so > >>fairly documented to use. It would be good (after publishing this > >>updated document, I hope) to take a new look at this part of the policy. > > > >I quote below the relevant part of RIPE-234: > > > >" > >5.2.5.2 Assignment Window for End User Assignments > > > >An LIR can apply their Assignment Window to an End User network only once in > >any 12-month period. This means that if an LIR makes more than one assignment > >to an organisation, the total amount of address space assigned with their AW > >in any twelve month period may not exceed the LIR's AW size. The LIR may only > >assign additional addresses to the same organisation after approval from the > >RIPE NCC. > >" > > > >In my view, this means that I may for example assign an AW worth of > >address space to the End User on 1 January of every year (assuming > >that I make no further assignments during the year). > > > >I also understand that the AW is unused at a moment in time, if at that > >moment I am allowed to assign an AW worth of address space (to that > >particular End User). > > > >In the above example, let's assume that I started assigning address space > >to the End User on 1 January 2000. The last time I have therefore assigned > >to them was 1 January 2003. If I read the text of the Draft, this > >means that my AW (with respect to that End User) is UNUSED, as it has > >to be considered unused starting 1 January 2001 (the anniversary of > >the FIRST assignement). My undertsanding is that it should read "LAST", > >therefore the AW would have to be considered unused starting 1 January > >2004. > > > >Did I misunderstand something? > > I think we may have been saying the same thing in different ways. Correct. This is what happened. > The AW > is refreshed on the anniversary of the first assignment. However, the > way we look at it is that assignments following the first assignment are > subtracted from the 'refreshing' and they have their own anniversaries. > > For example, if I had a /21 AW and made a /23 assignment to a customer > on 1 January 2003 I would have a /22 and a /23 left from my AW for that > customer for the rest of the year. If I assigned the same customer > another /23 on 1 April, 1 July and 1 October my AW (for that > organisation) would return to /23 on 1 January 2004. It would not return > to /21 because there were three subsequent assignments each of which has > an anniversary. > > If there's agreement that this is correct then we can update the text > for the policy document to something clearer. I agree with what you detailed in your reply. Yes, please do make the document more clear, as I for one misunderstood it. Thanks and regards, Janos

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised Draft Document for review: "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region"
by Janos Zsako 18 Oct '03

18 Oct '03

> From address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net Sun Oct 5 22:15:17 2003 Dear all, > As indicated at the last working group meeting, I would very much like to > se POSITIVE feedback from the WG before we make final policy: > > > Feedback on this document should be sent to the address-policy-wg@localhost > > mailing list for a period of two weeks. > > > > This review period will end on TWO WEEKS FROM ANNOUNCEMENT. > > Who can committ to read and send their comments within this timeline ? At RIPE 46 I was one of those who raised their hands when Hans Petter asked whether anybody volunteers to comment the document if it is circulated again on the list. Please find below my comments. First of all I would like to congratulate those who made the effort of re-writing the policies document. I think they did a very good job. The restructuring seems good to me. I have some specific comments, questions, and sugestions respectively: 1. In paragraph 2.0 I suggest mentioning RFC3330 too. (It gives further details about the address space usage than RFC1918 and RFC1112.) 2. Also in paragraph 2.0, point 2 I suggest adding a new sentence, which in my view makes it easier to understand the reference to RFC2993 (I included in the quoted text my sentence using underscores instead of spaces for easier identification): "...Hosts using these addresses cannot directly be reached from the Internet. _Such_connectivity_is_enabled_by_using_the_technique_known_as_ Network_Address_Translation_(NAT)_. Private addresses restrict a network so that its hosts only have partial Internet connectivity..." (of course, the exact wording itself can be changed). 3. In paragraph 4.0, at the end of second paragraph I suggest adding: "...Registration data (range, contact information, status etc.) must be correct _at_all_times_(i.e._they_have_to_be_maintained)." 4. In paragraph 6.1. I have a question and a suggestion related to the statement: "If a request needs to be approved by the RIPE NCC or if information is required in the event of an audit, the information must be submitted on a current version of the request form found at:" It is clear that in case of a new request that needs to be approved, information must be submitted on the current form. The question I have is related to the audit of a prior assignment: does the LIR have to produce the documentation in the _current_ version of the form? I would think that producing the documentation on the form used _at_the_time_of the assignment would be acceptable. If so, it may be good to slightly rephrase the above to reflect this. 5. I have the impression that the AW applied to an End User network (paragraph 7.0) is not clear enough, so I suggest adding a couple of new words: "An AW can be applied to an End User network once per 12-month period. This means an LIR can make more than one assignment to an End User _in_any_such_12_months'_period, but the total amount of address space cannot be larger than the LIR's AW. An LIR's AW is considered unused on the anniversary of the first (?!? I would think _last_) assignment to the End User._After_the_exhaustion_of_the_AW, the LIR may only assign additional addresses to the same End User after approval from the RIPE NCC. (In one of the sentences above I have the impression that first should be changed to last - did I misunderstood something?) 6. In the first paragraph of 9.0 I suggest repeating "or sub-allocated" in order to avoid any possible mis-interpretation (i.e. that sub-allocations do not necessarily have to be returned): "LIRs are allocated PA address space. They sub-allocate and assign this to downstream networks. If a downstream network or End User changes its service provider, the address space assigned _or_sub-allocated_ by the previous service provider will have to be returned and the network renumbered." 7. I have a question regarding the value "NOT-SET" of the status attribute (paragraph 9.0). The document states that _new_ objects cannot be created with this attribute. I would expect the database to also reject updates that have such an attribute. Is this the way the database behaves? If yes, it may be useful to mention this here ( I suggest something like: "Objects cannot be created or updated with this value".) That is all for now. I hope you will find these useful. Best regards, Janos

3 4