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

New AS Number Block allocated to the RIPE NCC
by Alex Le Heux 07 Apr '08

07 Apr '08

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the AS Number Block 47104 - 48127 from the IANA in April 2008. You may want to update your records accordingly. Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: 2008-03 Discussion Period has ended (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space)
by Roque Gagliano 03 Apr '08

03 Apr '08

Filiz, I guess the option is 1) we will be presenting the proposal at RIPE meeting. Regards, Roque On Apr 2, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2008-03 > Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space > > Dear all, > > The discussion period for the proposal described in > 2008-03 has ended. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-03.html > > Please note that there we no posts to the mailing list regarding the > proposal. > > Please reply to this email to let us know how you would like to > proceed. > > * Do you want to prepare the documentation that will support this > policy change? We will send you further instructions about this. > > * Do you want to extend the discussion period? Please let us know > what > date you wish to extend it to, and we will tell the RIPE community. > > * Do you want to update the text in your proposal and set a new > discussion period? > > * Do you want to withdraw this proposal? > > Please let us know your decision in the next seven days. > > We look forward to your response. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

2 1

about policy proposal : 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
by Frederic 01 Apr '08

01 Apr '08

<< To qualify for a direct assignment, the organisation must become a Local Internet Registry (LIR) or have a similar contractual relation >> 2006-1 The organisation MUST be LIR. but with ipv4-PI, the organisation must not be an LIR. so for Pi-ipv6 like pi-ipv4. the organisation must request assignement thru an LIR. but not MUST be an LIR. Why PI-ipv6 is not possible today ? we beleive that is it important for organisation who use Pi-ipv4 today, to have the possiblity to request PI-ipv6. so ripe must adopt the proposal of PI-ipv6, right now. We support all of proposal that not block assignment of PI-ipv6. so we support 2006-1 the status of LIR is not required by the organisation that request but the request must be done by an LIR. and we support 2008-1 and 2005-08 End User- assignent is done by LIR or ISP. : /64 for physical/extra small organisation. /56 organisation. bst regards Frederic

1 0

Questions on IPv6
by Natalya Petrova 28 Mar '08

28 Mar '08

Dear colleagues, I need your help on a question of upgrade IP- addresses from version IPv4 on version IPv6: 1) Have I understood corretly, that really start of upgrade is 04.02.2008? 2)Till what date/year is it planned to upgrade completely existing addresses with IPv4 on IPv6? 3) What completion date IP of IPv4 addresses? What parallel term IPv4 and IPv6? 4)There will be automatic a updating in base RIPE (ripe.net) structures existing IPv4 addresses on IPv6? Or it will be necessary to make a re-registration manually in base RIPE? 5)In case of our readiness for transition on IPv6 - what documents is it necessary to give to experts RIPE (in what form it is necessary to notify you and on what e-mail?) 6)Is it possible to make gradually updating IP of addresses with IPv4 on IPv6, for example part IP of Kazaktelecom addresses will be upgraded in 2009, and part IP of Kazaktelecom addresses in 2010, etc.? I ask your assistance in the explanatory. Thanks for cooperation and for the help. Best regards, Natalya

2 1

2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Mar '08

28 Mar '08

PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Dear Colleagues, The impact analysis for the proposal described in 2008-01 has been published and the proposal is moved to the Review Phase. If this proposal reaches consensus, the RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time operation to assign a /56 IPv6 PI prefix to all End Users with an IPv4 assignment registered in the RIPE Database. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-01.html We encourage you to send your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 16 April 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

19 26

RE: [address-policy-wg] Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources
by Hank Nussbacher 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

At 12:20 AM 12-03-08 +0000, michael.dillon(a)bt.com wrote: > > "Expired per the 1st of Januari 2007" > > > > The following one is apparently still valid though: > > http://www.st-ab.nl/wetten/1064_Wet_op_het_financieel_toezicht_Wft.htm > >Yes, the little details are important. > > > There is no mention at all about virtual property or the > > 'owning' of numbers though. A zipcode is no property, nor is > > a bankaccount number etc. > >Nobody has seriously suggested that IP addresses are property or >that transfer policies would change the ownership of IP addresses. >Instead, people are talking about buying and selling contracts >which give the right to use a specific IP address allocation. >This is a lot like a commodities contract, for instance you >can buy a contract for the delivery of a ton of copper, and >then sell that contract to somebody else. You never actually >own a ton of copper because you are buying and selling contracts. >There are many varieties of contract like this, usually called >derivatives (except for insurance and re-insurance). All of >these contracts are covered by the MiFID rules and are regulated >by national regulators such as the FAS in the UK. If the wording in RIPE stated the word "lease", why wouldn't that work? A customer comes and "leases" IP space from RIPE for the duration of their contract with RIPE (membership dues, fulfillment of rules, etc.) When their membership ends, the lease is broken and the IP space returns to RIPE. I bring your attention to: http://www.ripe.net/rs/news/global-ipv6-assign-2001-12-22.html 4.1. Address space not to be considered property It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered freehold property. The global IPv6 policies in this document are based upon the understanding that address space is lease-licensed for use rather than owned. All Internet Registries are expected to manage address space operations correctly in accordance with this principle. According to this policy, IP addresses will be allocated on a lease- license basis, with such lease-licenses to be of specific limited duration of normally one year. Conditions of a lease-license have specific conditions applied at the start or renewal of the lease. Lease-licenses will typically be renewed automatically at the end of their duration when the following two conditions are met: a) The original basis of the allocation remains valid. b) Registration requirements relating to that allocation have been fulfilled at the time of renewal However, when a lease-license is renewed, the new lease-license will be evaluated under and governed by the applicable resource allocation and renewal policies in place at the time of renewal. Changes to the conditions of current lease-licences shall be subject to a definite period of notice, except in exceptional circumstances recognized by a consensus of the Internet community. As address space is not owned, and consistent with the desire to avoid excessive fragmentation of address space, it may become necessary in extreme circumstances to renumber assignments. Such renumbering will only be undertaken after extensive consultation with the Internet community. ---------------------------------------- Unfortunately, RIPE has never used the word "lease" after 2001. The word "lease" was removed when the doc became policy: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ipv6policy.html Also the entire last paragraph was removed including the critical "As address space is not owned...". I have no clue as to whether anything similar was done for IPv4. -Hank

6 5

2008-02 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
by Filiz Yilmaz 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

PDP Number: 2008-02 Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR Dear Colleagues, The impact analysis for the proposal described in 2008-02 has been published and the proposal is moved to the Review Phase. If this proposal reaches consensus, RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have any existing IPv6 allocation. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html We encourage you to send your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 16 April 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

12 13

RE: [address-policy-wg] [OT] IPv4 addresses in RIPE database.
by Marcin Gondek 22 Mar '08

22 Mar '08

Hello, > rule of thumb as heard in ripe-ncc's LIR workshop: > everything larger than 4 IP Adresses should be assigned in ripe-db; dsl > end users e.g. are your own infrastructre - you do not need to assign > this individually, Live example: ADSL user (a company) with assigned a 8/5 static network => /29 subnet. LIR have to/should/can add this subnet as separate inetnum in RIPE DB? -- Marcin Gondek / Drixter e-utp.net NIP: PL1181589645 REGON: 140584662 Tel. +48602159929 Fax. +48222012418 office(a)e-utp.net http://www.e-utp.net

1 0

[OT] IPv4 addresses in RIPE database.
by Marcin Gondek 22 Mar '08

22 Mar '08

Hello All, Which policy, rule or document of RIPE describes that if ISP giving to customer more than one IP address then those addresses have to/should be saved into RIPE database as independent entry of inetnum? Or there is no rule, and ISP doing it because they want to make "clear view" of used IP addresses. Thanks in advance. PS: I tried to find on RIPE website. Question is about IPv4. -- Marcin Gondek / Drixter e-utp.net NIP: PL1181589645 REGON: 140584662 Tel. +48602159929 Fax. +48222012418 <mailto:office@e-utp.net> office(a)e-utp.net <http://www.e-utp.net> http://www.e-utp.net

2 2

2007-01 End User Relationships
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 17 Mar '08

17 Mar '08

I strongly support proposal 2007-01 which states this on the web page: ----------- This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC must be established before the End User receives Internet number resources (Autonomous System (AS) Number, Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 and IPv6, Internet Exchange Point (IXP) and anycasting assignments) directly from the RIPE NCC. It also states that the text in the policy should mention more explicitly that PI assignments can not be sub-assigned. ------------ I've been personally stuck in the middle of PI applications by end users and I don't believe that we, as an LIR, add any value to the process. In some cases, I believe we just create problems because we end up passing on messages between RIPE and the End User instead of allowing the two parties to communicate directly. After all, PI means Provider Independent, and since LIRs are providers, shouldn't the End User be independent of us when they apply for their addresses? Also, I have had experience on several occasions, of helping End Users in the ARIN region apply for PI allocations there. My role was to advise, explain, educate and to review their applications before they submitted them to ARIN. Every one of these End Users were eventually successful in their application, in fact one of them got it approved the same day they applied. The reason I am telling you this is to point out, that giving End Users a direct relationship with RIPE, does not mean that the LIRs are blocked from the whole process. If the End User is a customer, we can still help them by advising, explaining, educating and reviewing the applications before they go to RIPE. --Michael Dillon

1 0