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

Proposal Accepted - IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to RIRs
by RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator 19 Apr '06

19 Apr '06

RIPE PDP Number: 2005-09 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2005-09 has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-09.html Thank you for your input. Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC

1 0

2005-01 Review Period Extended Until 10 May 2006 (HD-ratio Proposal)
by RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator 19 Apr '06

19 Apr '06

PDP Number: 2005-01 HD-ratio Proposal Dear Colleagues The Review Period for the change to RIPE Document ripe-368 described in proposal 2005-01 has been extended until 10 May 2006 You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-1.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 18 Apr '06

18 Apr '06

Hi all, My first idea was submitting a PI IPv6 policy proposal next Monday to RIPE and the rest of the regions, trying to get a consensus for a "global" policy on this, but as this thread is being followed up in several mail exploders, to avoid a long cross-posting, I think it will be better to start some discussion already in a mailing list which is global, and actually I think we have the right one ... global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net So, if you aren't subscribed in the global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net, and you're interested in this thread, please subscribe at http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 If you're late because the Eastern, the archives are also available at http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/global-v6/ Regards, Jordi > De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> > Responder a: <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> > Fecha: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:39:07 +0200 > Para: "v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org" <v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org>, "ppml(a)arin.net" > <ppml(a)arin.net>, "shim6(a)psg.com" <shim6(a)psg.com> > Conversación: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN > Asunto: Re: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN > > Hi Owen, > > You said it: If somebody find the good solution, it will be attractive to > the people to go for it. Otherwise, you always have the chance to become an > LIR. My proposal actually is already considering this point and a way to > avoid a need for renumbering if that happens. > > I just want to make sure that we have a way-out if it becomes necessary, but > avoid a showstopper now. I think is it possible. > > I don't have a technical solution yet (and agree with your views on this in > the email below in general), but I'm confident we will have. If it will take > 4 years from now, or just 2, who knows, so my proposal is ensuring that we > have those 4 years+3 for allowing the people either to return the block, or > become an LIR and avoid renumbering an any changes in their network. > > By the way, it may happen, and I'm hoping so, that the technical solution > don't make necessary to return the PI block anymore, and in that case, we > will be even able to remove at that time the "temporarily" point in the > policy (if it becomes accepted). > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > >> De: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> >> Responder a: <owen(a)delong.com> >> Fecha: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 03:48:34 -0700 >> Para: <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es>, "v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org" >> <v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org>, >> "ppml(a)arin.net" <ppml(a)arin.net>, "shim6(a)psg.com" <shim6(a)psg.com> >> Asunto: Re: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN >> >> >> >> --On April 14, 2006 12:20:06 PM +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ >> <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> wrote: >> >> [snip] >>> However, I want to balance this with the medium-long term implications >>> created in the routing table and with the time needed to build and deploy >>> a better technical solution (or several) which is accepted by the >>> community. >>> >> I think we first need to define what we consider a solution... See below. >> >>> So my proposal basically is about having PI now everywhere (once ARIN >>> adopt it, is unfair not having it in other regions), but those PI >>> allocations for multihoming should be temporary and those address blocks >>> returned to the RIRs some time (lets say 3 years) after the new technical >>> solution is declared as a valid one. >>> >> I would not actually support this idea. The whole point of having PI >> space is to have the addresses for a long-term. Having a timeframe for >> return would simply restore the same barrier to entry that existed >> prior to passing the policy. >> >> Other RIRs are free to implement whatever v6 PI policy they feel is >> appropriate for their region. I would support a globally standardized >> v6 PI policy along the lines of ARIN 2005-1. >> >> However, I would like to argue that if the new technical solution will >> benefit from the return of this address space, it is most likely not >> truly a solution, but, instead, another clever hack piled on top of >> the existing set of hacks. >> >> I suppose if someone found the magic bullet to make geotopological >> addressing really work, that might qualify. However, I have very low >> expectations in that area. >> >> Absent that, any true solution will involve making the size of the routing >> table independent of the number of PI (or even PA) blocks issued by >> the RIRs or will make the size of the routing table practically >> irrelevant. >> >> I know this isn't the easy solution, but, we need to look long and >> hard at the way we do things. I think that solving these problems >> is going to require a significant paradigm shift. Assuming that we >> can use IP addresses for both end system identification and for >> routing topology indicators is how we created this problem. I don't >> see solving it without breaking that assumption, at least at the >> interdomain level. >> >> >>> At this way, on the long-run, we will not have routing table implications, >>> but we allow now the people that want to move ahead only if they have a >>> multihoming solution doing so. >>> >> If you think there is a possible solution (a real solution, not just >> a hack that postpones the inevitable at the expense of usability >> like CIDR did), then I'd like to hear what you are thinking. >> >>> This 3-years time for getting a multihoming network back to the new >>> technical solution (once adopted) is enough time, I think (it could be >>> changed to 5 years if needed, or whatever), so nobody today see the >>> temporarily of the proposal as a showstopper to go for it now. >>> >> I think you underestimate the momentum and requirements of the modern >> enterprise if you believe that to be true. Any capability available >> in v4 that is not available on at least equal or better terms in v6 >> is a deterrent to v6 deployment. >> >> The ability to get permanent addresses which do not have to be returned >> when you switch providers or renumbered on a schedule determined by >> some external organization is a major example of such a capability. >> >> Owen >> >> >> -- >> If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. > > > > > ********************************************** > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit > Slides available at: > http://www.ipv6-es.com > > 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. > > > > > > > ********************************************** > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit > Slides available at: > http://www.ipv6-es.com > > 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. > > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com 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.

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] Global IPv6 PI policy proposal
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 18 Apr '06

18 Apr '06

Hi Michael, I know is difficult to achieve, but I think is worth to try and at least try to make it as much close as possible if no way to make a single one. I'm in favor of the RIRs process but also in favor of trying to achieve global consensus, avoiding regional shopping, etc. In fact not trying to make it as much global and fair to all as possible, we could say otherwise that there is no reason to set policy by regions, but by country, or estate, etc., which I'm sure you don't agree. We need to understand the very high importance of the PI implications on a global level, which make a good candidate for a global policy, in my opinion. Regards, Jordi > De: <Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com> > Responder a: <Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com> > Fecha: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:09:26 +0100 > Para: <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> > CC: "address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net>, > "global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net" <global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net> > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] Global IPv6 PI policy proposal > >> Please, use global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net for inputs to this draft policy >> proposal, in order to avoid threads being split across multiple mail >> exploders in different regions. > > I strongly doubt that you will get anywhere with a global > policy proposal. There is a reason that RIRs set their > policies independently. The IPv6 policy was a special case > due to the need to create a new policy for a new type of > address. But from now on, the 5 RIRs are likely to continue > making local changes to policies and it is extremenly unlikely > for any global policy to survive the 5 RIRs intact. > > In fact, the concept of a global policy is in direct > contradiction with the bottom-up nature of the RIRs. > > --Michael Dillon > > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com 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.

1 0

IPv6 workshop in Istanbul
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 18 Apr '06

18 Apr '06

Hi all, Sponsored by ISOC, there will be an IPv6 workshop next Friday 28th afternoon in Istanbul, right after the RIPE lunch. The workshop is intended for those that don't have IPv6 knowledge. More information and registration: http://www.ipv6tf.org/ipv6_istanbul_isoc.php Please, forward this to your colleagues and other people that may be interested in participating. Thanks ! Regards, Jordi ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com 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.

1 0

RE: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
by Bound, Jim 17 Apr '06

17 Apr '06

The IETF has NOTHING to say anymore than any other body about any RIR policy. I want it to remain that way. IETF job is a standards body not a deployment body. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-shim6(a)psg.com [mailto:owner-shim6@psg.com] On > Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum > Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 3:18 AM > To: Patrick W. Gilmore > Cc: shim6-wg; ppml(a)arin.net; global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net; IETF > Discussion; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net; v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [narten(a)us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 > advances in ARIN] > > On 16-apr-2006, at 6:09, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > > Wow, Iljitsch, I have never lost so much respect so quickly for > > someone who was not flaming a specific person or using profanity. > > Congratulations. > > Well, that's too bad. But several years of trying to get a > scalable multihoming off the ground (flying to different > meetings on my own > dime) where first my ideas about PI aggregation are rejected > within the IETF mostly without due consideration because it > involves the taboo word "geography" only to see the next best > thing being rejected by people who, as far as I can tell, > lack a view of the big picture, is enough to make me lose my > cool. Just a little. > > > Back on topic, it is not just those 60 people - the "playground" > > appears to overwhelmingly agree with their position. I know I do. > > Don't you think it's strange that the views within ARIN are > so radically different than those within the IETF? Sure, > inside the IETF there are also people who think PI in IPv6 > won't be a problem, but it's not the majority (as far as I > can tell) and certainly not anything close to 90%. Now the > IETF process isn't perfect, as many things depend on whether > people feel like actually doing something. > But many of the best and the brightest in the IETF have been > around for some time in multi6 and really looked at the > problem. Many, if not most, of them concluded that we need > something better than IPv4 practices to make IPv6 last as > long as we need it to last. Do you think all of them were wrong? > > > I am sorry your technical arguments have not persuaded us > in the past. > > But I would urge you to stick to those, > > Stay tuned. > >

3 2

RE: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
by Bound, Jim 17 Apr '06

17 Apr '06

I agree. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-shim6(a)psg.com [mailto:owner-shim6@psg.com] On > Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore > Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 12:10 AM > To: Iljitsch van Beijnum > Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore; shim6-wg; ppml(a)arin.net; > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net; IETF Discussion; > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net; v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [narten(a)us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 > advances in ARIN] > > On Apr 14, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > > On 14-apr-2006, at 16:57, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > > >> 60 voted in favor of moving forward with PI. 6 voted against. > > > > Wow, 10 to 1. Amazing. > > > > Even more amazing: 60 people who represent nobody but their own > > paycheck get to blow up the internet. > > > > Where is ICANN when you need it? This little experiment in > playground > > democracy has to end before people get hurt. > > Wow, Iljitsch, I have never lost so much respect so quickly for > someone who was not flaming a specific person or using profanity. > Congratulations. > > > Back on topic, it is not just those 60 people - the "playground" > appears to overwhelmingly agree with their position. I know I do. > > I am sorry your technical arguments have not persuaded us in > the past. But I would urge you to stick to those, or at > least consider why we remain unconvinced, rather than devolve > into .. whatever that post was supposed to be. > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > >

1 0

Re: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 16 Apr '06

16 Apr '06

On 14-apr-2006, at 16:57, Scott Leibrand wrote: > 60 voted in favor of moving forward with PI. 6 voted against. Wow, 10 to 1. Amazing. Even more amazing: 60 people who represent nobody but their own paycheck get to blow up the internet. Where is ICANN when you need it? This little experiment in playground democracy has to end before people get hurt.

6 7

DRAFT agenda for RIPE 52 address policy WG meeting
by Gert Doering 16 Apr '06

16 Apr '06

Hi APWG folks, here's a first draft of an agenda for the RIPE52 address policy meeting in Istanbul in two weeks. Please send me your comments pretty quickly, as we need to hand in the agenda for printing next Tuesday. Gert Doering -- NetMaster --------------------------- snip ------------------------- A. Administrative Matters - Welcome - Select a scribe - Distribute participants list - Finalise agenda - Approve minutes from RIPE 51: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r51-minutes.html <has this already been circulated for comments?> B. Policy proposal overview (of address policy WG proposals) - Filiz Yilmaz - 2005-02 IP assignments for anycast DNS (OPEN) - 2005-03 IPv6 initial allocation criteria (Discussion) - 2005-08 Amend IPv6 assignment and utilization requirements (Open) - 2005-12 4-byte AS number policy (Open) - 2005-01 HD-Ratio proposal (concluding) - 2005-09 IPv6 IANA->RIR distribution policy (consensus) C. discussion on existing proposals that are not yet closed D. necessary steps to conclude 2005-09 E. ongoing policy work in other regions * presentation in the plenary * plus discussion time in the WG slot F. IPv6 PI policy - ongoing work in other regions * presentation about the ARIN IPv6 PI policy in the plenary (http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_1.html= * plus discussion time in the WG slot (Jordi Palet) Z. AOB -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 88685 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234

1 0

Global IPv6 PI policy proposal
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 14 Apr '06

14 Apr '06

Please, use global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net for inputs to this draft policy proposal, in order to avoid threads being split across multiple mail exploders in different regions. 1. Number: (The RIPE NCC will assign this) 2. Policy Proposal Name: Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-Organizations Note: We can use ³Portable IPv6 Assignments for End-User-Organizations² if that helps some folks to buy-in the proposal. 3. Author: a. name: Jordi Palet Martinez b. e-mail: jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es c. organisation: Consulintel 4. Proposal Version: 1.1 5. Submission Date: 17/4/2006 6. Suggested RIPE Working Group for discussion and publication: Address Policy 7. Proposal type: a. new, modify, or delete. NEW 8. Policy term: a. temporary, permanent, or renewable. TEMPORARY 9. Summary of proposal: This policy is intended to provide a solution for organizations that have a need for provider independent assignments in IPv6. Typically those organizations will require the provider independent assignment in order to be able to become multihomed in a similar fashion as today is done for IPv4, but other reasons are also foreseen. For example some organizations aren¹t multihomed, but still require being globally routable with stable addressing (avoiding renumbering if they change the upstream provider) and in those cases (reasons behind may be administrative, policy, security, etc.) it seems that no other solution than provider independence is feasible, at least by now. Considering the foreseen consequences in the medium/long-term of this policy in the routing tables, this policy proposes an expiry date of 3 years once a technically correct alternative valid and deployable solution becomes accepted by the community. After that sunset period, the assignments done for multihoming purposes should be reclaimed and this policy should be modified to still allow assignments that could be required for purposes different than multhoming. At the sunset, the organizations that want to avoid renumbering and qualify to become an LIR, will be able to opt for that solution and they will get allocated the same prefix. 10. Policy text: a. Current (if modify): b. New: Provider-Independent IPv6 assignment to End-User-Organizations Qualification for an IPv6 Provider-Independent assignment: To qualify for a direct assignment, the organization must not be an IPv6 LIR and must qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from RIPE NCC under the actual IPv4 policy. This is valid regardless of actually having being assigned or allocated such an IPv4 block. Provider-Independent IPv6 assignment size to End-User-Organizations: The minimum size of the assignment is /32. However a larger assignment can be provided if duly documented and justified. Subsequent assignment size to End-User-Organizations: Whenever possible, further assignments will be made from adjacent address blocks, but only if duly documented and justified. Assignment super-block: Those assignments shall be allocated from a separate super-block to allow for LIRs to filter them if required. Expiry for those assignments: In the case of assignments done under this proposal in order to address the multihoming issue, they will need to return the block in a maximum period of 3 years after a technically correct alternative valid and deployable solution becomes accepted by the community. Alternatively, to avoid renumbering, some of the organizations affected by this, could become an LIR, if they qualify for it. 11. Rationale: a. Arguments supporting the proposal In IPv4 there are organizations that qualify for an allocation for being PI, or could opt to be an LIR, either because they need to be multihomed or have other administrative or technical reasons to require a portable addressing block. This is not the case today for IPv6 and it is perceived as a clear barrier for deployment of IPv6 in some organizations, and is being addressed by this proposal by means of providing a direct assignment from RIPE NCC. These organizations are not allowed to make further assignments to other external organizations, but instead only to assign subnets internally within their own facilities. Assigning /32 will make those blocks to behave as other regular LIR-allocated ones and follow the generally accepted routing filtering practices, but at the same time being identifiable belonging to a special super-block. Also, it allows becoming an LIR, if that¹s the case, without requiring a renumbering. By setting up this policy, we avoid creating an unfairness situation among different regions and allow any organization that requires PI to access to it. All the organizations that opt for this PI, will be in the same fair situation once the technical solution is agreed and will have to either move to the new solution or become an LIR if they qualify. Newcomers will be in the same situation. Organizations that don¹t opt to PI with this policy is because they don¹t need it, so they aren¹t put in an unfair situation. Those that don¹t believe in possible alternative solutions and agree in going for a permanent PI policy instead, don¹t have valid reasons to oppose to this proposal, as the sunset will only enter into effect once that solution is agreed, so this proposal is not against their view. Some organizations my qualify to become an LIR now and avoid using this temporary assignment, but if their only reason to become an LIR is to get the PI block, then it seems better, looking in the long-term routing table size conservation, to go for this choice, which is more fair for the overall community. The ³temporarily² of this assignment must be understood as a long-term one, as we may expect those alternative solutions to be available possible in 3-4 years, which means that with the ³transition² period of 3 years, asking for a change in 6-7 years must not be considered as a pain. b. Arguments opposing the proposal The possible effect of this proposal is the grow of the routing tables to figures which, together with the existing (and forecasted) IPv4 routing entries, could create an important trouble to operators before vendors provide products with implement technical solutions, or even if those technical solutions exists, have an important impact in the cost or/and depreciation period for the infrastructure investments. This is the reason why the proposal provides already a fix sunset, but relative to the date where an alternative and technically correct solution is available and accepted as deployable by the community. Regarding the size of the assignment (/32), being a temporal one, should not be considered as a space waste, and instead be seen as an advantage in the sense of not requiring new special filters. Acknowledgments: I will like to acknowledge the inputs received for the first version of this proposal from Marcelo Bagnulo and Lea Roberts. ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com 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.

1 0