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

Update to the IPv4 Registry¹s Format and Content
by Leo Vegoda 21 Feb '08

21 Feb '08

This message has been sent to several lists. I apologise for duplicates. IANA has improved the format for the IPv4 Address Space registry. At the same time, the entries that were marked ³Various Registries² have been replaced with references to the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) that provides WHOIS and reverse DNS service for that /8 allocation. If you want to machine-process the IPv4 registry, the new fields are: * Prefix * Designation * Date * Whois * Status * Note where the Date will always be of the form ³YYYY-MM² and the status has the following possible values: RESERVED, LEGACY, ALLOCATED and UNALLOCATED /8 allocations that contain legacy assignments in them that are now managed by the RIRs have the text ³Administered by² in the Designation column. Legacy assignments refer to IP address allocations made before the RIR system was established. Reserved address space held by IANA does not have a date listed. The registry can be found at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space If you have questions about the structure of the new format, please send e-mail to iana(a)iana.org. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda Manager, Number Resources - IANA

1 0

applicability of a request for 60000 IPv4 addresses/systems in one shot...
by Fotis Georgatos 18 Feb '08

18 Feb '08

Dear all, I am a member of a -yet unofficial- effort in Greece, where we are in discussions on the potential of using Greek School Network resources (calculated at >62000 machines) with a scavenging technology developed in-house by NTUA [ref. http://gridathome.sourceforge.net/ & http://www.ntua.gr ] The idea is quite simple: you boot your systems or Virtual Machines with a LiveCD, you get an initial -normally private- IP address, and *then* a public one from a VPN tunnel, with which you implement and use full grid functionality because there's end2end network connectivity. Yes, there is a catch: this scheme requires extra publicly routable address space, if it is to be integrated with the existing grid infrastructure (and there are plenty of good reasons to do so, for us and others). I've been looking at http://www.ripe.net/docs/ipv4-policies.html and it appears to me that "Assignments for Internetworking Experiments" would be viable option to begin with but, under what conditions can we request standard address space for, say, 60000 PCs or Virtual Machines? What should we make clear in order to make this successfull in one shot? ps. Note that currently these resources lie within hundreds (thousands?), of NAT'd networks, in a multi-tier network. Our LiveWN technology can scale extremelly quickly, much faster than commitees in schools/government. :) The reason I am asking you is because we are about to prepare a TDR, Technical Design Report, and wish to confirm the validity of our options. ps2. at current stage IPv6 is not an option due to grid middleware limitations. thank you in advance for your time, Drs. Fotis Georgatos

2 1

Pushing 2007-01 forward
by Bernhard Schmidt 30 Jan '08

30 Jan '08

Hi, is there anything we (the community) can do to push 2007-01? http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html Regards, Bernhard

2 1

Legal status of IP addresses
by Sander Steffann 28 Jan '08

28 Jan '08

Hello, For your information: Last week there has been discussion about the EU legal status of an IP address [1]. This is about whether an IP address can be used to identify an individual and the privacy and data protection implications. Sincerely, Sander Steffann Address Policy co-chair [1] http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/012408-eu-aims-to-clarify-legal.html?f src=rss-security

1 0

"Dirty" recycled network assigned
by Max Tulyev 28 Jan '08

28 Jan '08

Hello All, I just got an assignment for my client (large PI block). But this block is listed in all DNS RBLs and DUN lists, as it was in use till Oct'07 as dynamic DHCP pool of other big ISP. So my client says they can't use this network, because mail service is blocked. RIPE rejected my request to change this network to another one: "As we do understand how unfortunate this is for **********, there is nothing we can do about prefixes that appear on so called black lists." How can I solve this? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

12 21

2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
by Filiz Yilmaz 19 Jan '08

19 Jan '08

PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. With the acceptance of this proposal, 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 review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 12 February 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

27 63

2008-02 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
by Filiz Yilmaz 18 Jan '08

18 Jan '08

PDP Number: 2008-02 Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 12 February 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
by Marcin Gondek 16 Jan '08

16 Jan '08

Garry Glendown pisze: > Marcin Gondek wrote: >> If the price will be higher, then everybody join to RIPE as LIR. And >> then we will have +1000% of LIRs. Do "we" need this? >> Now everybody is waiting for some kind of statesment or procedure >> from RIPE side. >> > Price should be low enough to keep people from becoming an LIR > unnecessarily, but high enough to make them think twice about getting > space that they don't need ;) > Indeed -- 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

PA vs PI routing pollution question
by Max Tulyev 07 Jan '08

07 Jan '08

Hello! As I send a lot of PI address space requests for my customers, RIPE hostmasters often says LIR is better than PI because of "That way they can receive as much contiguous (!) PA address space as they need." When I establish a new LIR, I write almost same request for PA, and it contains same address space usage plan for two years. PI networks requested after two years are not contiguous, and I understand why. Is it means RIPE reserve some contiguous network for future grow for LIRs? If yes, how big is this reservation? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

1 0

/24 in Europe, AP and North America?
by Hank Nussbacher 30 Nov '07

30 Nov '07

This may have been covered before but I'm not sure. I have a client that needs a /24 in Europe, a /24 in AP and a /24 in North America - all for multihoming purposes (in each area). If he becomes a RIPE member, can he get the 3 /24s and 3 ASNs of which only one set will be used in Europe? Or just get the /19 like everyone else, and carve it into 3 chunks and route them each from a different area? Thanks, Hank

4 3