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

suggesting medium/big customers to become lirs is a good or a bad idea?
by Tiberiu Ungureanu 21 Mar '07

21 Mar '07

hello in the past week, at the ISP i work for i received 2 requests for /22 each from customers that provide broadband services to end-users. i personally feel like this type of customers that have needs for such big chunks of ip space should be encouraged to become lirs, because * knowing their type of business it is very likely that they will request at least another /22 in about 1 year (or even less). * it is likely that they would want to be multihomed in the future, and it will be painful for them to renumber (well, if they do their homework will not be so painful, but it's a job they can avoid doing). anyway, at that point in time it is likely they will NEED to become lirs. * lirs pay money to ripe. the more payers, the more likely that the anual fees will be lower for everyone, or if they stay the same the more money RIPE-NCC will have to fund projects that will make our life easier. anyone else feels the same? should i go ahead and try to talk my management into talking them into becoming lirs? or do i just need a cup of coffee and/or more sleep? /t

4 4

2006-06 Proposal Accepted (IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period)
by Filiz Yilmaz 20 Mar '07

20 Mar '07

PDP Number: 2006-06 IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2006-06 has been accepted by the RIPE community. This proposal is to have the RIPE NCC allocate address space to Local Internet Registries (LIRs) based on their one-year needs. In other words, it suggests setting a maximum allocation period of 12 months. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-06.html Thank you for your input. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

Policy Proposal 2006-02
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 19 Mar '07

19 Mar '07

Hi all, I just wanted to remind that this policy is in discussion phase until 19th. The policy proposal was updated from a previous version on January 17th, so even if you had said anything regarding this proposal on the previous version, you need to state it again on the current version, so the chairs can sense about it. So, insisting a bit, if you haven't provided yet your view either in favor or against *this version* of the proposal, better do so now. And many thanks in advance for doing so ! Regards, Jordi ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

3 9

Comments on proposed IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria
by Jerzy Pawlus 06 Mar '07

06 Mar '07

Hi, The move towards removal of 200 assignments is a good one. However there is one thing which bothers me. If I read the 5.1.1. correctly the LIR must advertise the allocated block as a single prefix. So any LIR, unless it is a big one, will be limited to only one routing policy. But there are LIRs which hold more than one AS number and they will be left with nothing to advertise under the second and subsequent AS numbers. So I would propose either to remove this limitation or allow more than one /32 allocation per LIR with more than one AS number. Regards, Jurek

2 2

2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
by Filiz Yilmaz 27 Feb '07

27 Feb '07

PDP Number: 2006-02 IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy Dear Colleagues The Discussion Period for the proposal 2006-06 has been extended until until 19 March 2007. This proposal is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria and the End Site definition in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy". You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

10 15

RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 27 Feb '07

27 Feb '07

> "we" really don't care about that, do we? The "real" issue > imho is to make > sure that just one prefix makes it to the core/DFZ/<your > favourite term here>. ...to make sure that no more than one prefix makes it to the core routing tables. If the organization heavily deaggregates these prefixes on an extranet, then this is fine as long as the owner of the extranet has no problem with it. The real issue is that the Internet has no owner and therefore it is not clear who should manage routing guidelines/recommendations. Since this is a grey area for the RIRs, might I suggest that all issues of routing be removed from IPv4, IPv6 and ASN policies in order to collect them together in a single "Routing Recommendations" document? This can then contain the necessary prose to clarify the differences between the Internet and other internetworks. That way we no longer have to worry about ambiguous references to "advertising" routes in the policies. > And as has been pointed out already, from the point of view > of an RIR this is > (should be?) more like a (strong) recommendation than a > formal *address policy* > aspect. If this recommendation is violated, the RIR doesn't > have appropriate > means to sanction anyway... All the more reason to collect this material in a document separate from the policies themselves. --Michael Dillon

1 0

2006-07 Last Call for Comments (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
by Filiz Yilmaz 27 Feb '07

27 Feb '07

PDP Number: 2006-07 First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size Dear Colleagues The proposal described in 2006-07 is now at its Concluding Phase. This proposal suggests the Assignment Window (AW) available to new LIRs should automatically be raised from zero (0) to /21 (2,048 IPv4 addresses) six months after they receive their first allocation. Because the sub-allocation policy references the AW policy, the sub-allocation policy also needs to be updated. This proposal suggests that the maximum sub-allocation should be kept at /20 (4,096 IPv4 addresses). You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-07.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 March 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
by Filiz Yilmaz 26 Feb '07

26 Feb '07

PDP Number: 2006-05 PI Assignment Size Dear Colleagues We have published a draft document for the proposal described in 2006-05. This proposal suggests to have the minimum assignment size for PI assignments to be a /24 when routing is a major issue for a multihoming End User. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2006-05-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 14 March 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

6 8

RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 26 Feb '07

26 Feb '07

> > Just as an editorial comment: We should also remove the > "requirement" to > > advertise the prefix. I suppose that could be interpreted as "announce to at least one other AS using BGP4" which can be done without ever having the prefix visible on the public Internet. However, due to the ambiguity of the word "advertise" it would be good to get rid of it and put something less Internet-centric in its place. After all, RFC 2050 explicitly states that RIRs can allocate prefixes that will never be used on the Internet. The RIRs allocate IP resources, not Internet resources. > While there is an argument for using PI for private > assignments, right now > we can't do this in ipv6, because there is no ipv6 PI space > yet. But more > importantly, there are situations where it may be appropriate > for a private > entity to register large amounts of v6 address space, where > PI would be > less appropriate due to sub-assignment issues. In particular, there is a general misunderstanding of what "private addressing" means because most people have not read RFC 1918 carefully enough. Many people feel that addresses used on the Internet are "public" and therefore addresses that are not used on the Internet are private. This implies that all non-Internet use of IPv4 addresses should use RFC 1918 allocated ranges. However, that's not the case at all. In fact, RFC 1918 has allocated ranges for networks which will never interconnect. In other words, the word "private" refers to the networks themselves. A private network is one which never connects to another network. In the real world there are many instances of non-Internet IP networks which do interconnect, often on a large scale. Because they interconnect, they need unique addresses, i.e. RIR allocations. In the IPv4 world, people would rig up complex workarounds because of address scarcity, such as double-NAT. However, in the IPv6 world this is not necessary and RIR policy should not force people into replicating these workarounds. --Michael Dillon

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 26 Feb '07

26 Feb '07

> http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html Given that IPv6 is currently not primarily used by commercial network service providers, I think that this is an excellent revision. It allows the traditional network pionering organizations, universities, to justify an IPv6 allocation and it is broad enough that any commercial service provider who wishes to use IPv6 can still get an allocation. --Michael Dillon

1 0