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

IPv4 policy document and request forms updated
by leo vegoda 30 Oct '04

30 Oct '04

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has updated the policy document, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". This update documents the recent changes to the policy for allocation sizes as follows: - Minimum first allocation size is /21. - Minimum first allocation size for LIRs operating in Africa is /22. As a consequence of this update, and in order to incorporate other input, we have also updated the following documents: - Supporting Notes for the Provider Independent (PI) Assignment Request Form. - Provider Independent (PI) Assignment Request Form. - Supporting Notes for the IPv4 First Allocation Request Form. - Supporting Notes for the Autonomous System Number Request Form. - AS Number Request Form. There will be no change to the way you complete the request forms. As the updates to the forms listed above are purely textual, the version number of the forms will not change. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

9 26

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 policy document and request forms updated
by Janos Zsako 29 Oct '04

29 Oct '04

> From address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net Fri Oct 29 07:47:19 2004 > From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> Dear Jeff, First of all it may be useful to clarify that we are talking about AfriNIC (i.e. the RIR for Africa, with provisional recognition of ICANN, as opposed to AFNIC, who are the TLD operator for .fr). > > >>> Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different > > >>> policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such? > > >> > > >> No. RIPE members brought this to the address-policy WG that discussed > > >> this and agreed on it. > > >> > > >>> Interesting > > >>> method of policy determination.. > > >> > > >> Why? This is how all address-policy is determined. > > > > > > And there is the curx of the problem... > > > > Ah...you mean an open and transparent policy process? > > No of course not... > > > Ok fare enough. > > Most the rest of us think that is a good thing. You're ofcourse free to > > disagree. > > No I am all for it. However if a policy for one is different than > for another is that wise? Maybe so, maybe not so... If Afnic is > happy with it, great! >;) But is it reasonable to call it a "Policy". > Or would it be more accurate to say a "Policy for Afnic" and > everyone else has a different policy? > > Just trying to understand what the criterion if any for > determining "Policies" are and should be... > > But I am happy to see that not one size fits all, if you will > pardon the pun... >;) Well, I would agree it is this latter case. Most of the policies are regional policies, although there is a lot of effort invested in elaborating global policies. Best regards, Janos Zsako

2 1

ICANN and the NRO sign ICANN ASO MoU
by Paul Rendek 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

Dear Colleagues, I am happy to inform you that on 21 October 2004, the Number Resource Organization (NRO) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) signed a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the Address Supporting Organization (ASO). This MoU stipulates how the NRO will fulfil the role, responsibilities, and functions of the ASO as outlined in the ICANN Bylaws. The signing ceremony took place at the biannual Public Policy Meeting of the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN). More information on the MoU is available at: http://www.nro.net/archive/press-releases/aso-mou.html The full text of the MoU is available at: http://www.nro.net/documents/aso-mou.html Regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services and Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
by Filiz Yilmaz 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2001:4A00::/23 from the IANA in October 2004. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our web site at: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html> Regards, -- Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE 49 Meeting Report
by Nick Hyrka 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

[Apologies for duplicate mails.] RIPE 49 MEETING REPORT Dear Colleagues, The RIPE 49 Meeting was held from 20 - 24 September 2004 at the Renaissance Hotel, Manchester, United Kingdom. There were 301 participants at the meeting. Attendees also included government representatives and representatives from AfriNIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and ICANN. HIGHLIGHTS Highlights of RIPE 49 included an update on the Number Resource Organization from Axel Pawlik, Managing Director, RIPE NCC; a discussion on the RIPE policy development process; a proposal to restructure RIPE Meetings into three days on operational/technical content followed by two days on policy related issues. The ASO held an election for a seat on the ASO Address Council. Hans Petter Holen was re-elected. Geoff Huston, APNIC, gave a report on the routing table status for IPv4 and IPv6. This presentation is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49-plenary-bgp.… The European Operators Forum (EOF) featured presentations on peering and core network security. EOF presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/eof.html The RIPE NCC, LINX, TeleCity, Telecomplete and XChange Point Europe are thanked for the support they provided to the meeting. BT Net are thanked for the excellent provision of the meeting Internet connectivity. SUMMARY ADDRESS POLICY WORKING GROUP - It was agreed that IPv6 allocations from IANA to the RIRs had to be increased in terms of block size, and that /12 was the best allocation size to use. - RIPE Chair, Rob Blokzijl, announced that he would publish a draft of the policy development process for the RIPE region. - There was discussion on the usage of HD ratio for IPv4 and the forthcoming formal proposal regarding this. - The 200 End Users requirement for receiving an IPv6 allocation was discussed and it was agreed that a formal proposal to remove it should be sent to the community. Address Policy Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#ap DATABASE WORKING GROUP - It was agreed that the RIPE NCC should implement the 'abuse-c:' attribute in the 'irt', 'person', 'role' and 'inet[6]num' object classes. - It was agreed that the RIPE NCC should implement the 'poem' object in the RIPE Database. Database Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#db TEST TRAFFIC MEASUREMENT (TTM) WORKING GROUP - It was noted that ten test boxes, throughout the RIPE region, have been added to the RIPE NCC Test Traffic Measurements matrix in 2004. Test Traffic Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#tt ANTI-SPAM WORKING GROUP - A tutorial on message headers was given by Rodney Tillotson, Working Group Chair. - The group discussed the issue of improving the RIPE Database for abuse contacts. There was a majority support for a combination of 'irt' objects with some modifications, and for changes to the default Whois behaviour. Anti-Spam Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#anti-spam IPv6 WORKING GROUP - The RIPE NCC announced that K-root has been IPv6-enabled since August 2004. - Geoff Huston, APNIC, gave an update on multihoming in IPv6. - There was discussion about IPv6 glue for root name servers. IPv6 Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#ipv6 EIX WORKING GROUP - It was noted that the switching wish list is in last call and that the final review will take place at the Euro-IX meeting in Athens (October 2004). - It was noted that an Inter Providers Traffic Analyzer tool is available from the Milan Internet Exchange. EIX Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#eix ENUM WORKING GROUP - There was a presentation from the United Kingdom's Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) on an ENUM Consultation regarding how ENUM should be operated in the UK. - There was a presentation on ENUM deployment in Sweden. ENUM Working Group Presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#enum DNS WORKING GROUP - It was agreed that the DNS Working Group should take up responsibility for documenting the issues around DNS server migration. - It was noted that the DNS Working Group Chair would collect requirements for the DNS samples and statistics. - It was noted that the DNS Working Group Chair would coordinate the production of a RIPE Document based on Fernando Garcia's DNS Server Migration document. DNS Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#dns ROUTING WORKING GROUP - It was announced that the maintenance of the IRR Toolset has been transferred from the RIPE NCC to the Internet Systems Consortium (ISC). - There was discussion on securing the network through hiding the core. - There was an overview of the RIS project and discussion on the various uses of the myASn BGP monitoring tool. Routing Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#routing RIPE NCC SERVICES WORKING GROUP - It was agreed that the RIPE Chair would look at the possibilities of reworking the framework of RIPE meetings, so that operational content would come at the beginning of the meeting week and policy discussions would come at the end of the week. - It was agreed that the RIPE NCC would generate statistics on the quantity of spam on the RIPE NCC servers. RIPE NCC Services Working Group presentations can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/index.html#ncc-serv… TUTORIALS The RIPE NCC Training Team presented the RIPE NCC IP Request Tutorial. It explained address space assignment and allocation procedures in the RIPE NCC region: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/lir-course/index.html RIPE 49 WEBCASTING AND ARCHIVES During RIPE 49, the RIPE NCC held trials in collecting feedback from participants watching the webcast. The mediums used for this were IRC and Jabber. Archives of presentations, webcasts and IRC/Jabber feedback from RIPE 49 are available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/sessions-archive.html HOSTMASTER CONSULTATION CENTRE (HCC) The RIPE NCC Hostmaster Consultation Centre was open at RIPE 49, allowing RIPE NCC Members to discuss issues relating to their business directly with RIPE NCC Hostmasters. "MEET & GREET" The RIPE NCC's "Meet & Greet" was available for first-time RIPE Meeting attendees at RIPE 49. "Meet & Greet" introduces newcomers to the meetings, to key attendees from the RIPE community and to social events throughout the week. More information can be obtained by contacting <meet-greet(a)ripe.net>. RIPE 49 REFERENCE PAGE A complete list of RIPE 49 sessions, tutorials and presentations can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/index.html RIPE 50 RIPE 50 will be held in Stockholm, Sweden from 2 - 6 May 2005. Information on RIPE 50 will soon be made available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/ If you have any questions about RIPE Meetings, please contact <meeting(a)ripe.net>. -- end --

1 0

Fwd: [Apnic-announce] Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update
by leo vegoda 23 Sep '04

23 Sep '04

Hi, APNIC have announced a change in the default behaviour of their Whois server. The change will be made on 30 September. People using their Whois service from this region may be interested in the announcement. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC Begin forwarded message: > From: APNIC Secretariat <secretariat(a)apnic.net> > Date: September 23, 2004 2:02:27 am BST > To: apnic-announce(a)apnic.net > Cc: Subject: [Apnic-announce] Privacy of customer assignment records - > implementation update > Reply-To: apnic-talk(a)apnic.net, secretariat(a)apnic.net > > Dear colleagues, > > This is an important announcement on the implementation of APNIC > approved proposal prop-007-v001 regarding privacy of customer > assignment records. The proposal document, presentation, minutes, and > discussion are available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-007-v001.html > > The APNIC Secretariat will be implementing this proposal on 30 > September 2004. > > Please note that after this date, customer assignment objects will no > longer be visible in the APNIC Whois Database, unless the APNIC > account holder chooses to make public the customer records for their > allocated address range. > > A set of Frequently Asked Questions about this project is now > available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/info/faq/privacy-faq.html > > If you have any concerns or questions regarding this policy, please > contact the APNIC helpdesk at: > > E-mail: helpdesk(a)apnic.net > Phone: +617 3858 3188 > Fax: +617 3858 3199 > > Regards > > ______________________________________________________________________ > APNIC Secretariat <secretariat(a)apnic.net> > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61-7-3858-3100 > PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Fax: +61-7-3858-3199 > ______________________________________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > Apnic-announce mailing list > Apnic-announce(a)lists.apnic.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-announce >

2 1

draft-hain-ipv6-pi*
by Tony Hain 22 Sep '04

22 Sep '04

Per request, the pointers to the current PI drafts are: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-07.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-use-07.txt As the USE draft discusses, the exchange points are likely to have a more prominent role than they do in the PA deployment model. For the obvious discussion about how this is impacted by natural impediments, there is an example for exception prefixes at: http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/GrandCanyon.htm Depending on where these prefixes aggregate, there may or may not be any need for distributing these exception prefixes beyond one exchange point. In any case the only entities that need to know the detail are the ones directly involved in sorting it out. Tony

1 0

Additional supporting document for IANA->RIR IPv6 policy proposal
by Dominic Spratley 17 Sep '04

17 Sep '04

Dear Colleagues, The following informational paper "IPv6 address space management" was posted to the APNIC sig-policy mailing list by Geoff Huston, APNIC Secretariat. We have forwarded it to the Address Policy Working Group mailing list for your information. The document can also be found at: http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2004/08/msg00066.html Best regards Dominic Spratley Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: ETNO comments on AD ratio for IPv4 addresses allocation
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 16 Sep '04

16 Sep '04

> [ ... ] >Findings >1- This proposal fairly takes into account addressing hierarchies used in >large and extra-large registries and introduces a useful level of >flexibility for those registries. >2- The Local Internet Registries using the 80% criteria may continue to do >so and will not be impacted by the new policy. >3- Complicated calculation or administrative burden should be easily avoided >to registries choosing this method using simple chart or software through >LIR portal. >4- As analysed by APNIC, the impact on address consumption is limited to a >maximum around 20% and can be easily controlled and monitored using a rather >conservative approach (AD ratio of 0.966). Up to this point it sounds reasonable and well-balanced to me, >5- This impact can be partly counterbalanced by reducing the number of small >and extra-small registries whose existence is only justified by management >overhead of large registries with current 80% criteria, and has a positive >impact on address aggregation. but that particular reasoning in "5-": "whose existence is only justified by management overhead of large registries..." seems to be slightly off the mark? >6- No additional impact on registrations is seen in RIPE region, as >infrastructure assignments are already registered in the database. > [ ... ] Wilfried ( https://cert.aco.net/ ) _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

ETNO comments on AD ratio for IPv4 addresses allocation
by Debecker J.L. 16 Sep '04

16 Sep '04

RIPE Dear Sir, Madam, ETNO, representing 41 major telecom operators from 34 European countries, has studied the proposal to replace the fixed utilisation criteria of 80% in IPv4 address space allocation, by criteria based on AD (Assignment Density) ratio. Our conclusions are formulated in the attached Expert Contribution EC064. The document is the unanimous opinion of ETNO Members represented in the ETNO Frequency Management 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 ------------------------- September 2004 ETNO Expert Contribution on AD ratio for IPv4 addresses allocation Executive Summary ETNO (1) has considered the proposal to replace the fixed utilisation criteria of 80% in IPv4 address space allocation, by a criteria based on AD (Assignment Density) ratio. ETNO strongly support the proposal and suggest selecting an AD ratio of 0.966. ETNO further suggest to the RIRs to monitor the impact of this measure on address consumption and periodically report on it to the addressing community. Background During the RIPE 48 meeting in Amsterdam, a proposal was presented by APNIC to replace the fixed utilisation criteria of 80% to request additional IPv4 addresses blocks, by a criteria based on "AD ratio" value. This ratio value corresponds to a logarithmic scale and corresponds to a percentage utilisation, which decreases as the size of the address space grows. The presentation can be downloaded at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-ap-hd-ratio.p df The decision was made to take the discussion to the RIPE Address-policy working group mailing list and to ask for some feed back from the community. As most European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association 1(ETNO) members are large or extra-large Local Internet Registries in Europe, representing an important part of these categories in the RIPE region, this proposal was considered and analysed with attention. Findings 1- This proposal fairly takes into account addressing hierarchies used in large and extra-large registries and introduces a useful level of flexibility for those registries. 2- The Local Internet Registries using the 80% criteria may continue to do so and will not be impacted by the new policy. 3- Complicated calculation or administrative burden should be easily avoided to registries choosing this method using simple chart or software through LIR portal. 4- As analysed by APNIC, the impact on address consumption is limited to a maximum around 20% and can be easily controlled and monitored using a rather conservative approach (AD ratio of 0.966). 5- This impact can be partly counterbalanced by reducing the number of small and extra-small registries whose existence is only justified by management overhead of large registries with current 80% criteria, and has a positive impact on address aggregation. 6- No additional impact on registrations is seen in RIPE region, as infrastructure assignments are already registered in the database. Conclusion ETNO strongly supports this proposal and suggest selecting a conservative AD ratio value of 0.966. ETNO also suggest to the RIRs to monitor the use of this facility and its impact on address consumption, and periodically report on it to the addressing 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 EC064 (2004/09)

1 0