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

ASO Candidates for ICANN Board Announced: Open Call for Statements of Support
by Paul Rendek 10 Apr '06

10 Apr '06

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, The Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Address Council has announced details of the candidates to fill its seat on the ICANN Board of Directors. You can find the announcement, the list of candidates, and details on how to submit statements of support at: http://aso.icann.org/ Regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services and Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

RE: Question
by Bound, Jim 10 Apr '06

10 Apr '06

Terry, SLAs can be set up to route multihoming and should work for high-order prefixes. See below URL RFC 3178. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3178.txt Also all see attached allocations data from Mike Brig long time IPv6 Forum and NAv6TF SME, actually working with ARIN now on address space for his day job. Mike this is very good. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Davis, Terry L [mailto:terry.l.davis@boeing.com] > Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 8:40 PM > To: Latif Ladid ("The New Internet based on IPv6"); Bound, > Jim; Tony Hain; PPML; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Cc: Richard Jimmerson; ollivier.robert(a)eurocontrol.fr; > narten(a)us.ibm.com; Brig, Michael P CIV DISA GES-E; Pouffary, > Yanick; Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI > Subject: RE: Question > > Latif > > The ITU is one of my top concerns also. I am hearing the > same tune it sounds like you are; they are chomping at the > bit to get a chance to step in and "save the Internet". > > I'll respond with some longer thoughts tomorrow. Between > Tony's and Jim's last response, I have some thinking to do to > see how it might be made to work technically and politically > with some of the caveats they mention. > > One of my open thoughts, is if I have PA space, can I get > somehow get routing service (multi-homing) from more than the > single ISP that provided the addressing? > > Take care > Terry > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Latif Ladid ("The New Internet based on IPv6") > > [mailto:latif.ladid@village.uunet.lu] > > Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 6:53 AM > > To: 'Bound, Jim'; 'Tony Hain'; 'PPML'; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > Cc: 'Richard Jimmerson'; Davis, Terry L; > ollivier.robert(a)eurocontrol.fr; > > narten(a)us.ibm.com; 'Brig, Michael P CIV DISA GES-E'; 'Pouffary, > Yanick'; > > 'Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI' > > Subject: RE: Question > > > > > > > > The technical community should fix this one before the ITU sees this > as > > another chance to have a political say on the IPv6 > addressing. These > > things leak fast. My advice is that ARIN should seriously own this > > issue > before > > the > > ITU turns it to a sovereignty issue, which they could for sure win > this > > time. I know one of their noodles is sizzling at it. > > > > Cheers > > Latif > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bound, Jim [mailto:Jim.Bound@hp.com] > > Sent: 08 April 2006 14:52 > > To: Tony Hain; PPML; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > Cc: Richard Jimmerson; Latif Ladid ("The New Internet based > on IPv6"); > > Davis, Terry L; ollivier.robert(a)eurocontrol.fr; narten(a)us.ibm.com; > Brig, > > Michael P CIV DISA GES-E; Pouffary, Yanick; Green, David B RDECOM > CERDEC > > STCD SRI; Bound, Jim > > Subject: RE: Question > > > > Tony, > > > > Excellent response and educational for sure. It is my > belief that the > > corporate business model today for operating networks may be broken > and I > > think you supported that below? If not my apologies for > bad parsing? > > > > > > Their models were fine for an IPv4 world where NAT was required and > some > > even confuse NAT with securing ones network (and some > programs in the > U.S. > > Government) and that is simply bad policy and view. > > > > In the interim can this be resolved by RIRs creating some kind of > > additional wording that address reclaim will be done in > manner that is > negotiable, > > and > > do no harm to corporate or government business operations? > This would > buy > > us time to work on the issue and stop the FUD around this topic? > > > > Also I am willing to sponsor a world wide IPv6 Forum BOF on PI and > > addressing you can lead as ajunct to one of our regular meetings you > can > > lead for an entire day and we get the right players in the room. So > think > > about that as another option too. > > > > But do enjoy the beach this thread does not have to be resolved this > week > > :--) > > > > Really want to hear from all of you and discussion Terry D., Latif, > Yanick, > > Dave G. Mike B. etc. > > > > Thanks > > /jim > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf@tndh.net] > > > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 7:57 PM > > > To: 'PPML'; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > > Cc: 'Richard Jimmerson'; Bound, Jim; 'Latif Ladid ("The > New Internet > > > based on IPv6")'; 'Davis, Terry L'; > ollivier.robert(a)eurocontrol.fr; > > > narten(a)us.ibm.com; 'Brig, Michael P CIV DISA GES-E'; Pouffary, > Yanick; > > > 'Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI' > > > Subject: RE: Question > > > > > > A public answer to a private question as I have been sitting on a > > > beach for awhile without the laptop and missed some related > > > conversations ... :) > > > > > > > Is the outcome really open for discussion on the PI issue? > > > It doesn't > > > > sound like it is. > > > > > > In the minds of some the route scaling issue outweighs > any argument > > > for PI. > > > When taken to its extreme, there is a valid point that a broken > > > routing system serves no one. At the same time the dogmatic stance > by > > > the ISPs enforcing lock-in is just as broken both for large > > > organizations with financial or legal requirements for > operational > > > stability, and the individual consumer/small business > with limited > > > budgets looking for true competition. The hard part is > finding the > > > middle ground in a way that limits the exposure to a potential > routing > > > collapse. > > > > > > I personally refuse to declare some needs legitimate and > others not, > > > as the only point of such differentiation is to establish a power > > > broker. When all uses are legitimate, the problem boils > down to the > > > technical approach that can be scaled as necessary to > contain growth > > > in the routing system. > > > This is the logic that leads me to the bit-interleaved > geo that can > be > > > aggregated in varying size pockets as necessary using > existing BGP > > > deployments. We can start flat and implement aggregation > over time > > > when a region becomes too large to handle. One nice side > effect of > > > this geo approach is that it mitigates the continuing political > > > demands for sovereign rights to IPv6 space. > > > > > > Any aggregation approach will force the business models to change > from > > > current practice. That is not as bad a thing as the > alarmists will > > > make it out to be, because their accountants are claiming the > current > > > model is a broken money looser as it is (which if so > means they will > > > eventually change anyway). The primary difference is that > there will > > > need to be aggregation intermediaries between the last-mile and > > > transit providers. The current model eliminates these > middle-men by > > > trading off their routing mitigation service against a larger > routing > > > table (actually they already exist in the right places but are > > > currently limited to layer2 media aggregators). The > anti-PI bunch is > > > trying to use social engineering to directly counter the > bottom line > > > business reality that the customer will always win in the end. > > > Rather than accept this situation and constructively work on the > > > necessary business model and technology developments, they > effectively > > > stall progress by staunchly claiming there is no acceptable > technical > > > approach that works within the current business structure. > > > > > > Making the RIRs be the police deciding who qualifies for > PI and who > > > does not just adds to their workload and raises costs. The > > > beneficiaries of this gatekeeper approach are the ISPs that claim > they > > > need full routing knowledge everywhere, while the cost burden for > > > supporting the waste-of-time qualification/evaluation > work is borne > by > > > the applicant. > > > Given that the most vocal and organized membership in the RIR > > > community are the ISPs it is easy to understand why it would seem > like > > > the PI issue is already decided as closed. I tend to > believe it will > > > just drag out until enough of the corporate world becomes aware of > the > > > IPv4 exhaustion in light of their growth needs that they > collectively > > > appear at their RIR and demand an immediate solution. > Unfortunately > > > this 'wait till the last minute' tactic will likely result in a > > > reactionary quickie with its own set of long term side effects. > > > > > > A while back I tried to hold a BOF on geo PI in the IETF, but was > told > > > that > > > shim6 was the anointed solution. Now that at least nanog has told > the > > > IAB where to put shim6 it might be possible to get the > current IESG > to > > > reconsider. In any case the result would be a technical approach > that > > > would still require RIRs to establish policies around. As long as > they > > > are dominated by the ISPs it will be difficult to get real PI. > > > > > > Tony > > > > > > > >

1 0

RE: Question
by Tony Hain 08 Apr '06

08 Apr '06

A public answer to a private question as I have been sitting on a beach for awhile without the laptop and missed some related conversations ... :) > Is the outcome really open for discussion on the PI issue? It doesn't > sound like it is. In the minds of some the route scaling issue outweighs any argument for PI. When taken to its extreme, there is a valid point that a broken routing system serves no one. At the same time the dogmatic stance by the ISPs enforcing lock-in is just as broken both for large organizations with financial or legal requirements for operational stability, and the individual consumer/small business with limited budgets looking for true competition. The hard part is finding the middle ground in a way that limits the exposure to a potential routing collapse. I personally refuse to declare some needs legitimate and others not, as the only point of such differentiation is to establish a power broker. When all uses are legitimate, the problem boils down to the technical approach that can be scaled as necessary to contain growth in the routing system. This is the logic that leads me to the bit-interleaved geo that can be aggregated in varying size pockets as necessary using existing BGP deployments. We can start flat and implement aggregation over time when a region becomes too large to handle. One nice side effect of this geo approach is that it mitigates the continuing political demands for sovereign rights to IPv6 space. Any aggregation approach will force the business models to change from current practice. That is not as bad a thing as the alarmists will make it out to be, because their accountants are claiming the current model is a broken money looser as it is (which if so means they will eventually change anyway). The primary difference is that there will need to be aggregation intermediaries between the last-mile and transit providers. The current model eliminates these middle-men by trading off their routing mitigation service against a larger routing table (actually they already exist in the right places but are currently limited to layer2 media aggregators). The anti-PI bunch is trying to use social engineering to directly counter the bottom line business reality that the customer will always win in the end. Rather than accept this situation and constructively work on the necessary business model and technology developments, they effectively stall progress by staunchly claiming there is no acceptable technical approach that works within the current business structure. Making the RIRs be the police deciding who qualifies for PI and who does not just adds to their workload and raises costs. The beneficiaries of this gatekeeper approach are the ISPs that claim they need full routing knowledge everywhere, while the cost burden for supporting the waste-of-time qualification/evaluation work is borne by the applicant. Given that the most vocal and organized membership in the RIR community are the ISPs it is easy to understand why it would seem like the PI issue is already decided as closed. I tend to believe it will just drag out until enough of the corporate world becomes aware of the IPv4 exhaustion in light of their growth needs that they collectively appear at their RIR and demand an immediate solution. Unfortunately this 'wait till the last minute' tactic will likely result in a reactionary quickie with its own set of long term side effects. A while back I tried to hold a BOF on geo PI in the IETF, but was told that shim6 was the anointed solution. Now that at least nanog has told the IAB where to put shim6 it might be possible to get the current IESG to reconsider. In any case the result would be a technical approach that would still require RIRs to establish policies around. As long as they are dominated by the ISPs it will be difficult to get real PI. Tony

1 0

RIR Comparative Policy Overview Update
by leo vegoda 07 Apr '06

07 Apr '06

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleague, The Regional Internet Registry (RIR) Comparative Policy Overview has been updated and is available on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) website at: http://www.nro.net/policy/index.html This document enables the community to review the policies in the global RIR system. To view specific policy statements from individual RIRs, please visit each RIR's policy pages: - AfriNIC http://www.afrinic.net/policy.htm - APNIC http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/dev/index.html - ARIN http://www.arin.net/policy/index.html - LACNIC http://lacnic.net/en/politicas/index.html - RIPE NCC http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/ Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

ASO/ICANN Board Nominations Close Soon
by Paul Rendek 03 Apr '06

03 Apr '06

[Sent on behalf of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) - Apologies for Duplicates] Dear Colleagues In line with the ASO MoU and ICANN bylaws, the Address Council calls for nominations to the ICANN Board to fill the ASO seat. Mouhamet Diop currently holds this seat. His term ends in June 2006. You can send your nominations until 4 April 2006 to <nominations(a)aso.icann.org>. Your e-mail should include the following information: - Full name of person that you want to nominate - A contact e-mail address for the person that you nominate - If available, a contact telephone number for your nominee - Your full name - Your contact e-mail address - Your contact telephone number Nominations will be reviewed in accordance with the ASO Board of Directors selection procedures. You can find these on the ASO website. Regards Paul Rendek RIPE NCC

1 0

IP Assignments for anycasting DNS
by Ondřej Surý 24 Mar '06

24 Mar '06

Hi, I would like to stir the waters around /subj policy proposal. When I requested additional anycast IPv4 addresses for our secondaries I was told, that RIPE cannot allocate /24 for one server according to current policies, hence I would like to see this policy proposal finished. Is there anything we can do to help finishing this proposal? Ondrej. -- Ondřej Surý technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Lužná 591, 160 00 Praha 6, Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ tel:+420 222 745 110 fax:+420 220 121 184 -----------------------------------------

2 1

ETNO comments on RIPE Policy Proposal 2005-09
by Debecker J.L. 14 Mar '06

14 Mar '06

RIPE Dear Sir, Madam, ETNO, representing 41 major telecom operators from 34 European countries, has studied the proposed global Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) policy for allocation of IPv6 blocks to Regional Internet Registries. The Association supports the document and welcomes the open and transparent process used in the development of this proposal. More details are in the attached Expert Contribution EC080. The document is the unanimous opinion of ETNO Members represented in the ETNO Naming, Addressing and Numbering Working Group and has been endorsed by the ETNO Board. We are all prepared to discuss these comments in more detail and whenever useful. ETNO will be pleased to contribute to the further development of Europes views on the issue. Best regards, Michael Bartholomew ETNO Director ------------------------- March 2006 ETNO Expert Contribution on the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) policy for allocation of IPv6 blocks to Regional Internet Registries Executive Summary ETNO supports the proposed global Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) policy for allocation of IPv6 blocks to Regional Internet Registries and welcomes the open and transparent process used in the development of this proposal. The European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association ETNO (1) has carefully reviewed the proposed global policy on Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries. ETNO understands that currently no global policy for allocating IPv6 addresses from IANA to RIRs is in place and believes that such a policy is needed. Current allocations from IANA are done on a /23 basis, which in practice have shown that this fixed allocation size is too small and do not allow for efficient and effective management of the resource by the RIRs. The proposal to use /12 as a unit of IPv6 allocation from IANA to RIRs will overcome these problems mentioned above. The policy also provides clear rules and procedures for calculation of available and necessary space and criteria for eligibility for initial and additional allocations. This whole new concept was discussed in an open and transparent way and finally supported within all RIRs fora. ETNO supports this approach as it provides higher flexibility for the RIRs to achieve an efficient and effective management of the IPv6 resource for the benefit of their members and the overall Internet community. (1) The European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association is representing 41 major companies from 34 European countries, providing electronic communications networks over fixed, mobile or personal communications systems. ETNO's primary purpose is to establish a constructive dialogue between its member companies and actors involved in the development of the European Information Society to the benefit of users. More information on ETNO can be found at: www.etno.be ETNO Expert Contribution EC080 (2006/03)

1 0

2005-01 - Last Call for Comments (HD-ratio Proposal)
by RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator 08 Mar '06

08 Mar '06

PDP Number: 2005-01 HD-ratio Proposal Dear Colleagues The proposal to change to RIPE Document ripe-324 is now at its final stage. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-1.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 7 March 2006. We will publish the new policy after this date if we receive no objections. Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC

3 3

ASO Call for Nominations for ICANN Board Seat
by Paul Rendek 02 Mar '06

02 Mar '06

Apologies for duplicate e-mails Sent on behalf of the The Address Supporting Organization (ASO) *ASO Call for Nominations for ICANN Board Seat* In compliance with the ASO Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and ICANN bylaws, the Address Council is calling for nominations to the ICANN Board to fill the ASO seat currently held by Mouhamet Diop, whose term expires in June of 2006. This nomination period will close on 4 April 2006. Nominations may be submitted by anyone by sending e-mail to: nominations(a)aso.icann.org Nominations must include the following information: - Full name of person being nominated - Contact email address for person being nominated - Contact telephone number (if available) of the person being nominated - Full name of the person making the nomination - Contact email address for the person making the nomination - Contact telephone number of the person making the nomination Nominations will be reviewed in accordance with the ASO Board of Directors selection procedures, as documented on the ASO website. Best regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services and Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

2005-09 Last Call for Comments (IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to RIRs)
by RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

PDP Number: 2005-09 IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to RIRs Dear Colleagues The proposal described in 2005-09 is now at its final stage. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-09.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 March 2006. We will publish the new policy after this date if we receive no objections. Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator

1 0