Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Hi, Just wanted to say a few words in support of the proposal 2011-04. For companies like ours it makes perfect sense due to the fact that they often have multiple separate networks run by different people (user-facing, management, corporate and so on). ARIN has a policy to meet requirements of multiple discrete networks (https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six_11) while RIPE has no provision for that. In fact, RIPE policy proposal 2011-04 was already offered to us as a solution for problem Google Corp network is currently facing. We have aggressive plans to roll out IPv6 in EMEA offices but our allocation request was turned down (see email below) due to the fact that initial /32 has been already allocated to us. In reality, however, it was allocated to another entity withing company which is not willing to share. We as an organization currently see the policy proposal 2011-04 as a way out and would very much like to support it. Please consider this as a "yes" vote. Thank you! Gleb
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:39 PM, RIPE NCC Staff <lir-help@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi Gleb,
Thank you for your email.
The policies in the RIPE region differ from the APNIC ones, so what you might have received there is not per se what you will receive here. :)
The IPv6 policy procures one initial IPv6 allocation per LIR to deploy IPv6 on the network.
An LIR can request a subsequent allocation when they have reached an HD-ratio value of 0.94.
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-523#subsequent_allocation>
There is no support in the policy at the moment for multiple /32 allocations for administrative ease.
The options you do have are as follows:
-support the current policy proposal 2011-04 and then get a larger allocation for the ie.google registry when the proposal is implemented:
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04>
-split the current /32 allocation into two different prefixes. This is allowed by the current policy, after the community decided to remove the limitations that the allocation had to be announced as one single prefix.
You can add several maintainers to the current /32 allocation using the LIR portal Object Editor:
<https://lirportal.ripe.net/home/>
Please let me know if you have any further questions about the IPv6 policy and what your current options are.
Kind regards,
Gerardo Viviers RIPE NCC Registration Services
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:47:19 +0100, Gleb Katenin wrote:
Dear Henriette,
Thanks for your detailed answer! The allocation you've mentioned belongs to Google user-facing production network (AS15169) and is protected by MNT-GOOG-PROD object. What we are currently requesting is /32 allocation for internal corporate network (AS41264), our objects are protected by MNT-GOOG-CORP. For instance, by APNIC we have following allocations:
- 2404:6800::/32 for Prod network - 2401:fa00::/32 for Corp network
Google Prod and Corp networks are logically and physically separate and maintained by different people. For this reason we keep network allocations separate as well. Please kindly advise how to proceed with our RIPE request further.
-- Best regards,
Gleb Katenin Network Engineer Tel. +41 44 668-1072
Google Switzerland GmbH Brandschenkestrasse 110, 8002 Zurich Registration No. CH-020.4.028.116-1
hi! On 02/28/2012 01:13 PM, Gleb Katenin wrote:
request was turned down (see email below) due to the fact that initial /32 has been already allocated to us. In reality, however, it was allocated to another entity withing company which is not willing to
though i believe internal administrative issues should not be solved by demands against community policies, i'm happy for you that the new policy might help you - even if it's just collateral. but actually, as i read your mail, i was wondering how much v4 address space is currently allocated to you (and by that i mean "all of you", no matter how your corporate group is assembled or how it's distributed among countries or RIRs)? regards, Chris
Hi Chris, Given corporate network is RFC1918-based, public IPv4 address space requirements are minimal. I would expect it to be AS36384 (in Americas), AS41264 (in EMEA) and AS45566 (in APAC) -originated routes combined. In contrast, production (user-facing) network is obviously built on public addresses. The number of routes originated from AS15169 (http://rs2.swissix.ch/cgi-bin/bgplg?cmd=show+ip+bgp+source-as&req=15169) would give you a good idea of how much address space it uses. Cheers, --gleb On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:37 PM, <chrish@consol.net> wrote:
hi!
On 02/28/2012 01:13 PM, Gleb Katenin wrote:
request was turned down (see email below) due to the fact that initial /32 has been already allocated to us. In reality, however, it was allocated to another entity withing company which is not willing to
though i believe internal administrative issues should not be solved by demands against community policies, i'm happy for you that the new policy might help you - even if it's just collateral.
but actually, as i read your mail, i was wondering how much v4 address space is currently allocated to you (and by that i mean "all of you", no matter how your corporate group is assembled or how it's distributed among countries or RIRs)?
regards,
Chris
hi!
requirements are minimal. I would expect it to be AS36384 (in Americas), AS41264 (in EMEA) and AS45566 (in APAC) -originated routes [...]
thanx! just in case it might be of interest to you, too - in return the summary of what i was interested in: funny: at least ris tells me AS36384 doesn't announce anything... AS41264 currently announces a total of /23. AS45566 currently announces a single /24.
AS15169 (http://rs2.swissix.ch/cgi-bin/bgplg?cmd=show+ip+bgp+source-as&req=15169)
that would be: 8.8.4.0/24 8.8.8.0/24 64.15.112.0/20 64.233.160.0/19 66.102.0.0/20 66.249.64.0/19 70.32.128.0/19 72.14.192.0/18 74.125.0.0/16 108.59.80.0/20 108.170.192.0/18 113.197.105.0/24 173.194.0.0/16 173.255.112.0/20 193.142.125.0/24 207.223.160.0/20 208.65.152.0/22 208.117.224.0/19 209.85.128.0/17 216.58.192.0/19 216.239.32.0/19 if i counted correctly, that's a total of /14, /20, /21, /23, /24. if that's really all, at least compared to the top ten allocatees this is actually a tiny allocation... :) regards, Chris
On 2/28/12 1:13 PM, Gleb Katenin wrote:
We as an organization currently see the policy proposal 2011-04 as a way out and would very much like to support it. Please consider this as a "yes" vote. Thank you!
Glad to hear ;) Cheers, Jan
participants (4)
-
Chris
-
chrish@consol.net
-
Gleb Katenin
-
Jan Zorz @ go6.si