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

2013-05 Proposal Accepted (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
by Marco Schmidt 20 Dec '13

20 Dec '13

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to the RIPE Document ripe-592, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05 The new RIPE document is ripe-599 and it is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-599 An announcement regarding the implementation will follow. Thank you for your input. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

2013-05 Last Call for Comments (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
by mschmidt 19 Dec '13

19 Dec '13

Dear colleagues, The proposal described in 2013-05, No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers, is now in its Concluding Phase. The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs have declared that consensus for the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 28 November and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the co-Chairs of all RIPE Working Groups for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05 [1] Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 28 November 2013. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC Links: ------ [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-04

5 6

Reclaiming unused Ipv4 blocks
by Hans Petter Holen 17 Dec '13

17 Dec '13

(Hi, I have changed the subject since the substance of the discussion now seem to have moved to a discussion on how to reclaim unused Ipv4 to prolong the lifetime of Ipv4. On 16.12.2013 10:58, Oliver Bryssau wrote: > Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks It would be good for the discussion to understand which blocks we are talking about: - legacy space - (from IANA or InterNic) - before RIPE creation - older RIPE space not fully utilized - recent RIPE space not yet utilized There has been various attempts to reclaim address space in the past. Using the RIPE fee structure in this context may be more difficult and is ultimately a topic for the General Assembly. The fee is not for the lease or purchase off address space but a fee for the services provided by the RIPE NCC to its members. Registration services is only part of this fee, there are also other services and most importantly support for the Policy process and RIPE meetings. The breakdown of the cost is now in the activity plan. Hans Petter

2 1

Fixed Links in Policy Proposal 2013-03
by Mihnea-Costin Grigore 10 Dec '13

10 Dec '13

Dear colleagues, Thank you for pointing out the links that weren't working in the policy proposal 2013-03. We have now fixed these in all versions of the proposal. Furthermore, we have checked the other policy proposal pages to ensure that all links are working correctly. We apologise for the inconvenience caused and will enact processes to regularly double-check external links on our website to prevent this from happening. Regards, Mihnea-Costin Grigore Web Services Team Leader RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 2
by Olga Romanova 10 Dec '13

10 Dec '13

we are intrested to assist and support changes. a lot of changes should be made in the policy. a lot of things are too old to be true. but all this email systems are of couse too old and a lot of people and LIRs just ignore this ability. but looks RIPE don't wanna add any new possibility??? On 10.12.2013 2:20, address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 (Lu Heng) > 2. Re: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 (Tore Anderson) > 3. Re: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 (Lu Heng) > 4. Re: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 (Sander Steffann) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 15:58:17 +0100 > From: Lu Heng <h.lu(a)anytimechinese.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, > Issue 1 > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: > <CAAvCx3h0Hco=UzY8p0X8sR6udQzqusG-Tdm1Q8CYfoHR3MYUHQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hey guys: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 > > under b. Arguments opposing the proposal, point 3, there is following > link, in which is not working. > > http://www.ripe.net/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-October/007258.html > > Mind someone check it and help to fix it? > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:15 PM, <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: >> Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to >> address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Announcing address resources (Sebastian Wiesinger) >> 2. ripe-589 question (Raimundas Tuminauskas) >> 3. Re: ripe-589 question (Sander Steffann) >> 4. 2013-06 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (PA/PI Unification IPv6 >> Address Space) (Marco Schmidt) >> 5. Re: 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and >> Impact Analysis Published (Gert Doering) >> 6. Re: 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and >> Impact Analysis Published (Richard Hartmann) >> 7. 2013-03 Last Call for Comments (Post Depletion Adjustment of >> Procedures to Match Policy Objectives, and Clean-up of Obsolete >> Policy Text) (Marco Schmidt) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:48:24 +0100 >> From: Sebastian Wiesinger <ripe.address-policy-wg(a)ml.karotte.org> >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Announcing address resources >> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net >> Message-ID: <20131125084824.GA25194(a)danton.fire-world.de> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> >> * Nick Hilliard <nick(a)inex.ie> [2013-11-21 22:36]: >>> Apropos of, oh I don't know, the weather or the phase of the moon or >>> something, could someone point me to the RIPE policy which says that if >>> you're assigned address resources from the RIPE NCC, that they cannot be >>> announced from outside the RIPE NCC service region? >> Hi, >> >> the way I understood it is that the LIR company has to be in the RIPE >> region but where you announce your prefixes is your decision. I >> requested an AS&PA explicitly for announcement in asia without any >> problems. >> >> >> Regards >> >> Sebastian >> >> -- >> GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) >> 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. >> -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 05:57:33 +0200 >> From: Raimundas Tuminauskas <raimis(a)litnet.lt> >> Subject: [address-policy-wg] ripe-589 question >> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net >> Message-ID: <20131129055733.18765g0w8kjb0hog(a)pastas.litnet.lt> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" >> >> Dear all, >> >> We've ran into internal conflict assigning IPv6 address space. Anyone >> caring to provide independent view on this would be much appreciated. >> >> Problem: >> LITNET (org: ORG-LA11-RIPE) has been comprised of two ASNs 2847 and 5479. >> Current IPv6 allocation is /29 (inet6num: 2001:778::/29). >> Current policy is to assign /32 per AS. >> Proposed new policy is to assign /30 per AS. >> >> Arguments for new policy: >> - RIPE-589 3.4 (Aggregation) and 3.8 (Conflict of goals) >> >> Arguments for current policy: >> - Two routes will be announced anyway. Different AS_PATH and routing >> policies, no aggregation. >> - /32 is 1200+ /64s per head of population of the country. Should be >> enough for any local AS for foreseeable future. Revise assignment >> planning if not. >> - The same address space allocation will be preserved for future AS if >> any current end-user (university) would require independent routing >> policies. >> - We will not get any wider allocation. Next address range (if it will >> happen) will be far off from 2001:778 >> >> I'm not in favor of wasting a long-term resource like IPv6 and rather >> deviate from the policy, but maybe I'm missing a point here somewhere ? >> TIA >> >> sincerely, >> Raimundas Tuminauskas >> KTU ITD / LITNET NOC >> Studentu 48a, Kaunas >> 51367, Lithuania >> phone: +370 37300033 >> fax: +370 37300643 >> email: raimis(a)litnet.lt >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:32:40 +0100 >> From: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] ripe-589 question >> To: Raimundas Tuminauskas <raimis(a)litnet.lt> >> Cc: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Working Group" >> <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> >> Message-ID: <F664CA6C-673C-4CCE-A184-F351521F5649(a)steffann.nl> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> >> Hi, >> >>> We've ran into internal conflict assigning IPv6 address space. Anyone caring to provide independent view on this would be much appreciated. >>> >>> Problem: >>> LITNET (org: ORG-LA11-RIPE) has been comprised of two ASNs 2847 and 5479. >>> Current IPv6 allocation is /29 (inet6num: 2001:778::/29). >>> Current policy is to assign /32 per AS. >>> Proposed new policy is to assign /30 per AS. >>> >>> Arguments for new policy: >>> - RIPE-589 3.4 (Aggregation) and 3.8 (Conflict of goals) >>> >>> Arguments for current policy: >>> - Two routes will be announced anyway. Different AS_PATH and routing policies, no aggregation. >>> - /32 is 1200+ /64s per head of population of the country. Should be enough for any local AS for foreseeable future. Revise assignment planning if not. >> I wouldn't count separate /64s as that will give you a distorted number. Count using the assignment size you are using, which I assume is a /48 per customer/university/research-institution/etc. That gives you a maximum of 65536 per /32. In a country with a population of 3 million that is probably enough to number all your customers :-) >> >>> - The same address space allocation will be preserved for future AS if any current end-user (university) would require independent routing policies. >>> - We will not get any wider allocation. Next address range (if it will happen) will be far off from 2001:778 >> So why don't you announce 2001:778::/32 from one AS and 2001:77c::/32 from the other? If you need more space in one AS then you can grow to a /31 or /30, and if you don't need to grow them then you might, if at some point in the future you need a separate routing policy, announce the remaining space from a separate AS. >> >>> I'm not in favor of wasting a long-term resource like IPv6 and rather deviate from the policy, but maybe I'm missing a point here somewhere ? >> Well, you can get the /29, and nobody else is going to get it, so you might as well make the best use of it. I just asked the NCC to expand my /32 to a /29. I use the first /32 for a LISP-based ISP setup, and I'm going to use one or more separate /32s for training purposes for ISPs. The nice thing about IPv6 is that we can always get enough space for what we need (within limits of course ;-) >> >> Cheers, >> Sander >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:07:24 +0100 >> From: "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> >> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (PA/PI >> Unification IPv6 Address Space) >> To: policy-announce(a)ripe.net >> Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net >> Message-ID: <mailman.469.1386335706.3566.address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> >> >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> >> The proposal 2013-06, "PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space" has been withdrawn. >> >> >> It is now archived and can be found at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-06 >> >> >> Reason for withdrawal: During the Discussion Phase it became clear that the RIPE >> community did not see the need for such a complex change. As a result, the >> proposers decided to withdraw the proposal. >> >> >> Regards >> >> Marco Schmidt >> Policy Development Office >> RIPE NCC >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 5 >> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 19:31:21 +0100 >> From: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal >> Description and Impact Analysis Published >> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net >> Message-ID: <20131205183121.GA54642(a)Space.Net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Dear AP WG, >> >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:01:24AM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: >> [..] >>> We encourage you to read the proposal and the impact analysis and send any >>> comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 5 December 2013. >> the review phase for 2013-03 has ended today. No comments were received, >> thus I consider all opinions expressed in the previous review phase to be >> unchanged (as announced, given that the policy *text* has not changed >> at all) - that is, 32 persons expressing support of the proposal, 3 persons >> opposing it. >> >> Given the amount of support, and the nature of the opposition, the WG >> chairs have decided that we have reached rough consensus. We think that >> all counterarguments brought up by the opposers have been fully answered - >> this might not be sufficient to convince the opposers to change their mind, >> but given sufficient support otherwise, it's good enough to move forward. >> >> This is what we'll do now -> move 2013-03 to Last Call. Marco will send >> the formal announcement for that later today or tomorrow. >> >> For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or >> something else) in the previous review phase is appended below. This is >> what the chairs based their decision on. >> >> If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the >> conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know. >> >> Gert Doering, >> Address Policy WG Chair >> >> >> support: >> Mikael Abrahamsson >> Randy Bush >> Daniel Stolpe >> Dimitri I Sidelnikov >> Andy Davidson >> Sascha Luck >> Jan Zorz >> Bengt G?rd?n >> Raluca Andreea Gogiou >> Roger J?rgensen >> Richard Hartmann (strong sentiments that this is the last round) >> Andreas Larsen >> Jan Ingvoldstad (strong sentiments that this is the last round) >> Elvis Daniel Velea >> Nigel Titley (seconding Richard's sentiments) >> Gerry Demaret >> Sebastian Wiesinger >> Lu Heng >> Sonderegger Olaf >> Ian Johannesen >> Fredrik Widell >> Alexey Ivanov >> Sandra Brown >> Donal Cunningham >> Tassos Chatzithomaoglou >> Mike Burns >> George Giannousopoulos >> Ragnar Anfinsen >> Milton L Mueller >> Ronny Boesger >> Dominik Bay >> Lutz Donnerhacke >> >> support, based on changes to the external PR regarding 2013-03, and >> some future PDP tasks for the chairs and the community >> Malcolm Hutty (see <52406426.8080405(a)linx.net> for details) >> >> neutral (mailing to the thread, but not expressing support/opposition): >> CJ Aronson >> Nick Hilliard >> Hans Petter Holen >> John Curran >> >> >> opposing: >> McTim >> "I don't think shifting to a market based allocation/assignment system >> is good stewardship. In addition there are multiple issues listed in >> the Impact Analysis that cause me great concern. The primary issue >> there is incompatibility with other regional transfer policies." >> >> considered to be completely answered by the chairs, on the basis >> that 2013-03 does not introduce a transfer market, documenting the >> goal to assign to end users was introduced in v3 of the proposal, >> and incompatibilities with other regions' transfer policies can be >> amended by adding appropriate checks to our cross-RIR-policy-to-be, >> if the community ever expresses enough interest to make one (which >> currently does not seem to be the case). >> >> Also, most other issues raised in the IA have been addressed by v4 >> of the proposal, which changed the title and rationale to send a >> less controversial message to external parties. So we consider this >> to be addressed as well. >> >> Filiz Yilmaz >> would support if criteria for allocation would be amended to include >> "LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space" >> >> This was carefully listened to, and discussed with NCC RS to see >> what the impact would be. NCC RS stated that the addition of this >> sentence would not change their interpretation of the policy, given >> that all the LIR can do to demonstrate it's need is the willingness >> to make an assignment from it - and that is already there. >> >> Based on this and based on the significant number of people asking for >> the proposal to go forward and not do another round of textual change >> and impact analysis, the chairs decided to consider this point >> answered, and go forward. >> >> Sylvain Vallerot >> main issue seems to be that this proposal would bring LIR admins >> under pressure from unreasonable customer demands and that could >> create very problematic situations inside the LIR, without being >> able to point to RIR policies to back not giving out addresses. >> >> considered to be answered by the proposer, as there is pressure >> inside all LIRs anyway, and even with the old formalism in place, >> a LIR might very well run into the same situation of having to deny >> addresses to some of it's customer as there are just not enough left >> anymore to give all of them what they ask for. >> >> David Farmer >> initially "-1"'ing, then clarifying this to be more on the discussion >> between Sylvain and Tore, and explicitely stating neutrality on the >> proposal itself >> -- >> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? >> >> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard >> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >>

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1
by Lu Heng 09 Dec '13

09 Dec '13

Hey guys: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 under b. Arguments opposing the proposal, point 3, there is following link, in which is not working. http://www.ripe.net/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-October/007258.html Mind someone check it and help to fix it? On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:15 PM, <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Announcing address resources (Sebastian Wiesinger) > 2. ripe-589 question (Raimundas Tuminauskas) > 3. Re: ripe-589 question (Sander Steffann) > 4. 2013-06 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (PA/PI Unification IPv6 > Address Space) (Marco Schmidt) > 5. Re: 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and > Impact Analysis Published (Gert Doering) > 6. Re: 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and > Impact Analysis Published (Richard Hartmann) > 7. 2013-03 Last Call for Comments (Post Depletion Adjustment of > Procedures to Match Policy Objectives, and Clean-up of Obsolete > Policy Text) (Marco Schmidt) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:48:24 +0100 > From: Sebastian Wiesinger <ripe.address-policy-wg(a)ml.karotte.org> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Announcing address resources > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <20131125084824.GA25194(a)danton.fire-world.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > * Nick Hilliard <nick(a)inex.ie> [2013-11-21 22:36]: >> Apropos of, oh I don't know, the weather or the phase of the moon or >> something, could someone point me to the RIPE policy which says that if >> you're assigned address resources from the RIPE NCC, that they cannot be >> announced from outside the RIPE NCC service region? > > Hi, > > the way I understood it is that the LIR company has to be in the RIPE > region but where you announce your prefixes is your decision. I > requested an AS&PA explicitly for announcement in asia without any > problems. > > > Regards > > Sebastian > > -- > GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) > 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. > -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 05:57:33 +0200 > From: Raimundas Tuminauskas <raimis(a)litnet.lt> > Subject: [address-policy-wg] ripe-589 question > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <20131129055733.18765g0w8kjb0hog(a)pastas.litnet.lt> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" > > Dear all, > > We've ran into internal conflict assigning IPv6 address space. Anyone > caring to provide independent view on this would be much appreciated. > > Problem: > LITNET (org: ORG-LA11-RIPE) has been comprised of two ASNs 2847 and 5479. > Current IPv6 allocation is /29 (inet6num: 2001:778::/29). > Current policy is to assign /32 per AS. > Proposed new policy is to assign /30 per AS. > > Arguments for new policy: > - RIPE-589 3.4 (Aggregation) and 3.8 (Conflict of goals) > > Arguments for current policy: > - Two routes will be announced anyway. Different AS_PATH and routing > policies, no aggregation. > - /32 is 1200+ /64s per head of population of the country. Should be > enough for any local AS for foreseeable future. Revise assignment > planning if not. > - The same address space allocation will be preserved for future AS if > any current end-user (university) would require independent routing > policies. > - We will not get any wider allocation. Next address range (if it will > happen) will be far off from 2001:778 > > I'm not in favor of wasting a long-term resource like IPv6 and rather > deviate from the policy, but maybe I'm missing a point here somewhere ? > TIA > > sincerely, > Raimundas Tuminauskas > KTU ITD / LITNET NOC > Studentu 48a, Kaunas > 51367, Lithuania > phone: +370 37300033 > fax: +370 37300643 > email: raimis(a)litnet.lt > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:32:40 +0100 > From: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] ripe-589 question > To: Raimundas Tuminauskas <raimis(a)litnet.lt> > Cc: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Working Group" > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <F664CA6C-673C-4CCE-A184-F351521F5649(a)steffann.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi, > >> We've ran into internal conflict assigning IPv6 address space. Anyone caring to provide independent view on this would be much appreciated. >> >> Problem: >> LITNET (org: ORG-LA11-RIPE) has been comprised of two ASNs 2847 and 5479. >> Current IPv6 allocation is /29 (inet6num: 2001:778::/29). >> Current policy is to assign /32 per AS. >> Proposed new policy is to assign /30 per AS. >> >> Arguments for new policy: >> - RIPE-589 3.4 (Aggregation) and 3.8 (Conflict of goals) >> >> Arguments for current policy: >> - Two routes will be announced anyway. Different AS_PATH and routing policies, no aggregation. >> - /32 is 1200+ /64s per head of population of the country. Should be enough for any local AS for foreseeable future. Revise assignment planning if not. > > I wouldn't count separate /64s as that will give you a distorted number. Count using the assignment size you are using, which I assume is a /48 per customer/university/research-institution/etc. That gives you a maximum of 65536 per /32. In a country with a population of 3 million that is probably enough to number all your customers :-) > >> - The same address space allocation will be preserved for future AS if any current end-user (university) would require independent routing policies. >> - We will not get any wider allocation. Next address range (if it will happen) will be far off from 2001:778 > > So why don't you announce 2001:778::/32 from one AS and 2001:77c::/32 from the other? If you need more space in one AS then you can grow to a /31 or /30, and if you don't need to grow them then you might, if at some point in the future you need a separate routing policy, announce the remaining space from a separate AS. > >> I'm not in favor of wasting a long-term resource like IPv6 and rather deviate from the policy, but maybe I'm missing a point here somewhere ? > > Well, you can get the /29, and nobody else is going to get it, so you might as well make the best use of it. I just asked the NCC to expand my /32 to a /29. I use the first /32 for a LISP-based ISP setup, and I'm going to use one or more separate /32s for training purposes for ISPs. The nice thing about IPv6 is that we can always get enough space for what we need (within limits of course ;-) > > Cheers, > Sander > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:07:24 +0100 > From: "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (PA/PI > Unification IPv6 Address Space) > To: policy-announce(a)ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <mailman.469.1386335706.3566.address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > > > Dear colleagues, > > > The proposal 2013-06, "PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space" has been withdrawn. > > > It is now archived and can be found at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-06 > > > Reason for withdrawal: During the Discussion Phase it became clear that the RIPE > community did not see the need for such a complex change. As a result, the > proposers decided to withdraw the proposal. > > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 19:31:21 +0100 > From: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal > Description and Impact Analysis Published > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <20131205183121.GA54642(a)Space.Net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear AP WG, > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:01:24AM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > [..] >> We encourage you to read the proposal and the impact analysis and send any >> comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 5 December 2013. > > the review phase for 2013-03 has ended today. No comments were received, > thus I consider all opinions expressed in the previous review phase to be > unchanged (as announced, given that the policy *text* has not changed > at all) - that is, 32 persons expressing support of the proposal, 3 persons > opposing it. > > Given the amount of support, and the nature of the opposition, the WG > chairs have decided that we have reached rough consensus. We think that > all counterarguments brought up by the opposers have been fully answered - > this might not be sufficient to convince the opposers to change their mind, > but given sufficient support otherwise, it's good enough to move forward. > > This is what we'll do now -> move 2013-03 to Last Call. Marco will send > the formal announcement for that later today or tomorrow. > > For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or > something else) in the previous review phase is appended below. This is > what the chairs based their decision on. > > If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the > conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know. > > Gert Doering, > Address Policy WG Chair > > > support: > Mikael Abrahamsson > Randy Bush > Daniel Stolpe > Dimitri I Sidelnikov > Andy Davidson > Sascha Luck > Jan Zorz > Bengt G?rd?n > Raluca Andreea Gogiou > Roger J?rgensen > Richard Hartmann (strong sentiments that this is the last round) > Andreas Larsen > Jan Ingvoldstad (strong sentiments that this is the last round) > Elvis Daniel Velea > Nigel Titley (seconding Richard's sentiments) > Gerry Demaret > Sebastian Wiesinger > Lu Heng > Sonderegger Olaf > Ian Johannesen > Fredrik Widell > Alexey Ivanov > Sandra Brown > Donal Cunningham > Tassos Chatzithomaoglou > Mike Burns > George Giannousopoulos > Ragnar Anfinsen > Milton L Mueller > Ronny Boesger > Dominik Bay > Lutz Donnerhacke > > support, based on changes to the external PR regarding 2013-03, and > some future PDP tasks for the chairs and the community > Malcolm Hutty (see <52406426.8080405(a)linx.net> for details) > > neutral (mailing to the thread, but not expressing support/opposition): > CJ Aronson > Nick Hilliard > Hans Petter Holen > John Curran > > > opposing: > McTim > "I don't think shifting to a market based allocation/assignment system > is good stewardship. In addition there are multiple issues listed in > the Impact Analysis that cause me great concern. The primary issue > there is incompatibility with other regional transfer policies." > > considered to be completely answered by the chairs, on the basis > that 2013-03 does not introduce a transfer market, documenting the > goal to assign to end users was introduced in v3 of the proposal, > and incompatibilities with other regions' transfer policies can be > amended by adding appropriate checks to our cross-RIR-policy-to-be, > if the community ever expresses enough interest to make one (which > currently does not seem to be the case). > > Also, most other issues raised in the IA have been addressed by v4 > of the proposal, which changed the title and rationale to send a > less controversial message to external parties. So we consider this > to be addressed as well. > > Filiz Yilmaz > would support if criteria for allocation would be amended to include > "LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space" > > This was carefully listened to, and discussed with NCC RS to see > what the impact would be. NCC RS stated that the addition of this > sentence would not change their interpretation of the policy, given > that all the LIR can do to demonstrate it's need is the willingness > to make an assignment from it - and that is already there. > > Based on this and based on the significant number of people asking for > the proposal to go forward and not do another round of textual change > and impact analysis, the chairs decided to consider this point > answered, and go forward. > > Sylvain Vallerot > main issue seems to be that this proposal would bring LIR admins > under pressure from unreasonable customer demands and that could > create very problematic situations inside the LIR, without being > able to point to RIR policies to back not giving out addresses. > > considered to be answered by the proposer, as there is pressure > inside all LIRs anyway, and even with the old formalism in place, > a LIR might very well run into the same situation of having to deny > addresses to some of it's customer as there are just not enough left > anymore to give all of them what they ask for. > > David Farmer > initially "-1"'ing, then clarifying this to be more on the discussion > between Sylvain and Tore, and explicitely stating neutrality on the > proposal itself > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >

4 7

2013-03 Last Call for Comments (Post Depletion Adjustment of Procedures to Match Policy Objectives, and Clean-up of Obsolete Policy Text)
by Marco Schmidt 06 Dec '13

06 Dec '13

Dear colleagues, The proposal described in 2013-03, "Post Depletion Adjustment of Procedures to Match Policy Objectives, and Clean-up of Obsolete Policy Text", is now in its Concluding Phase. The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs have declared that consensus for the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 6 January 2014 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the co-Chairs of all RIPE Working Groups for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 6 January 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

2013-06 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
by Marco Schmidt 03 Dec '13

03 Dec '13

Dear colleagues, The proposal 2013-06, "PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space" has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-06 Reason for withdrawal: During the Discussion Phase it became clear that the RIPE community did not see the need for such a complex change. As a result, the proposers decided to withdraw the proposal. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

ripe-589 question
by Raimundas Tuminauskas 29 Nov '13

29 Nov '13

Dear all, We've ran into internal conflict assigning IPv6 address space. Anyone caring to provide independent view on this would be much appreciated. Problem: LITNET (org: ORG-LA11-RIPE) has been comprised of two ASNs 2847 and 5479. Current IPv6 allocation is /29 (inet6num: 2001:778::/29). Current policy is to assign /32 per AS. Proposed new policy is to assign /30 per AS. Arguments for new policy: - RIPE-589 3.4 (Aggregation) and 3.8 (Conflict of goals) Arguments for current policy: - Two routes will be announced anyway. Different AS_PATH and routing policies, no aggregation. - /32 is 1200+ /64s per head of population of the country. Should be enough for any local AS for foreseeable future. Revise assignment planning if not. - The same address space allocation will be preserved for future AS if any current end-user (university) would require independent routing policies. - We will not get any wider allocation. Next address range (if it will happen) will be far off from 2001:778 I'm not in favor of wasting a long-term resource like IPv6 and rather deviate from the policy, but maybe I'm missing a point here somewhere ? TIA sincerely, Raimundas Tuminauskas KTU ITD / LITNET NOC Studentu 48a, Kaunas 51367, Lithuania phone: +370 37300033 fax: +370 37300643 email: raimis(a)litnet.lt

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
by Gert Doering 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

Dear Address Policy WG, On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:36:24PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > A proposed change to RIPE Documents ripe-589, "IPv6 Address > Allocation and Assignment Policy", ripe-451, "IPv6 Address > Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points" and ripe-233, > "IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers In The RIPE Region" > is now available for discussion. [..] > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 25 October 2013. The discussion phase for this proposal is now over, but after the feedback received at the RIPE meeting in Athens (and here on the list, even if in the wrong thread :) ) the chairs have deviced to take a step back, and re-state the fundamental "do we want to go there?" question (and extend the discussion phase by +4 weeks). The proposal aims to unify IPv6 PA and IPv6 PI space into one kind of address space, "IPv6 addresses". This is the goal. The idea to go there came from various people in the community, mostly for one reason - having two differently "coloured" addresses that do the same thing, routingwise, but follow different policies and have different strings attached, creates quite some confusion for the folks out there that can no longer be nicely separated into "ISPs" (->become RIPE members, use PA) and "end-users" (->use PI, if BGP-based multihoming and/or upstream independence is required). Most notably, "garage style hosting providers" seem to have issues with the requirement of the IPv6 PI policy that PI space MUST NOT be sub-assigned, which the NCC interprets most strictly (because the vast amount of "grey" between "ok" and "not ok" is hard to codify into hostmaster guidelines). OTOH, I have not heard that complaint from actual hosting providers for a while, so maybe the issue is not that big anymore. *If* we go to "there is only one type of addresses" anymore, we have two options - abandon IPv6 PI (as in "not so expensive, but independent space") completely, problem solved -> I do not think we can reasonably do that - find a way to solve the needs for both RIPE members and non-members, with maximum flexibility, with only one type of addresses, taking "real world" address distribution chains (LIR->network operator-> hosting provider->customer->hosted virtual machines, for example) and "real world" financial constraints into account. 2013-06 aims to achieve the latter, while proposing / finding specific solutions for all the small details that come up if such a radical change is implemented. I think the presentation at RIPE67 was a bit too fast for the WG - it could have spent a bit more time on the background and "do we want to go there" before overwhelming you with questions about details to be solved. For that, I apologize - I did review the presentation beforehand with the proposers, and assumed "yes, this should work out nicely"... Anyway. I think what we need to hear now from the community (*you*) is where we want to go: - do nothing, our policy for IPv6 PA and IPv6 PI "as of today" is fine - keep the distinction, work on the IPv6 PI policy (if the pain is large enough that someone actually volunteers to come with a proposal) - go the big step, unify IPv6 PA and IPv6 PI, and solve all the detail problems that need to be addressed if we go there. Going for one of the first options would mean abandoning 2013-06 - but if that's what the community wants, it's much better to do it *now* than to invest more time in text, impact analysis, a few rounds of review phase, and *then* give up the project. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

9 10