Hi, More of a general question but will RIPE be authenticating the details (address, abuse etc) of the IP assignments to ensure the integrity of the database? Regards Fred Langford Fred Langford Internet Research Analyst Internet Watch Foundation t +44 (0)1223 237700 www.iwf.org.uk -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net Sent: 08 November 2005 11:00 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: address-policy-wg digest, Vol 1 #315 - 2 msgs Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg@ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at address-policy-wg-admin@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. Fwd: 2005-01 One Week to End of Discussion Period: HD Ratio for IPv4 (Hans Petter Holen) 2. Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else? (Pekka Savola) --__--__-- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:21:31 +0100 From: Hans Petter Holen <hph@oslo.net> To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: 2005-01 One Week to End of Discussion Period: HD Ratio for IPv4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050809070908030505050308 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear WG, At the meeting in Amsterdam I requested participation from the signatories to the ETNO letter. As chair of the wg I would like to understand from the participants of this WG, representing the signatories to the ETNO position - why you have chosen not to participate in the discussion in the Address Policy WG but rather develop this position in another organization. I will not move this proposal to last call before this clarified to the Address Policy working group. Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen Address Policy WG. --------------050809070908030505050308 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name*0="[address-policy-wg] ETNO comments on AD ratio for IPv4 addresses"; name*1=" allocation.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename*0="[address-policy-wg] ETNO comments on AD ratio for IPv4 addre"; filename*1="sses allocation.eml" Return-Path: <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Received: from smtp220.tiscali.dk (smtp220.tiscali.dk [62.79.79.114]) by i.dont.no (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8GD3O9Z028063 for <hph@dont.no>; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:03:24 -0100 Received: from cpmail.dk.tiscali.com (mail.tiscali.dk [212.54.64.159]) by smtp220.tiscali.dk (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8GD3OPS091657 for <hph@dont.no>; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:03:24 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net) Delivered-To: hpholen@tiscali.no Received: from postboy.ripe.net (193.0.0.201) by cpmail.dk.tiscali.com (6.7.018) id 412F265D0014F272 for hpholen@tiscali.no; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:03:22 +0200 Received: from postboy.ripe.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postboy.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12CB179C2D; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:59:02 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: address-policy-wg@lists.ripe.net Received: by postboy.ripe.net (Postfix, from userid 8) id 9C0C079D57; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:01:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from postman.ripe.net (postman.ripe.net [193.0.0.199]) by postboy.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF5479D56 for <address-policy-wg@postboy.ripe.net>; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:01:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: by postman.ripe.net (Postfix, from userid 8) id 8A7D34FC46; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:01:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from etno.be (138.206-78-194.adsl-fix.skynet.be [194.78.206.138]) by postman.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE554E26F for <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:01:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from etnodebecker ([192.168.1.1]) by etno.be (etno.be [192.168.1.253]) (MDaemon.PRO.v6.8.4.R) with ESMTP id 44-md50000000012.tmp for <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:01:04 +0200 Reply-To: <debecker@etno.be> From: "Debecker J.L." <debecker@etno.be> To: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Cc: <gerd.wiedenhaupt@t-systems.com>, <alain.bidron@francetelecom.com>, "Michael Bartholomew" <bartholomew@etno.be> Organization: ETNO Message-ID: <001101c49bd4$126111e0$0101a8c0@etno.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Processed: etno.be, Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:01:04 +0200 (not processed: message from valid local sender) X-Lookup-Warning: HELO/EHLO lookup on etnodebecker does not match 192.168.1.1 X-MDRemoteIP: 192.168.1.1 X-Return-Path: debecker@etno.be X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ** X-RIPE-Spam-Status: U 0.499986 / 1.8 / 0.0 / disabled X-RIPE-Signature: 80201789b55f74e2c7bf4670a81825e0 Subject: [address-policy-wg] ETNO comments on AD ratio for IPv4 addresses allocation Sender: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net Errors-To: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net X-BeenThere: address-policy-wg@ripe.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Developing policies relating to the management and registration of Internet addresses and routing identifiers <address-policy-wg.ripe.net> List-Post: <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> X-RIPE-Lists: Developing policies relating to the management and registration of Internet addresses and routing identifiers <address-policy-wg.ripe.net> List-Subscribe: <http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg>, <mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net?subject=subscribe> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg>, <mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Help: <mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net?subject=help> List-Archive: <http://www.ripe.net/mailman/private/address-policy-wg/> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:01:01 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by i.dont.no id i8GD3O9Z028063 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 Europe's 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) --------------050809070908030505050308-- --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 03:43:59 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> To: Andreas =?ISO-8859-1?Q?B=E4=DF=2FDenic?= <baess@denic.de> cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net, ipv6-wg@ripe.net, ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net, Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu> Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else? This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --1589707168-1824570081-1131332849=:12767 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1; FORMAT=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511070508011.12767@netcore.fi> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Andreas Bäß/Denic wrote:

...

...

...

4. Allocate /48 to primary hu DNS server that is globally routable? Are there similar to /48 from 2001:0500::/30 in RIPE region?

- I think this is the cleanest solution.

Can we discuss this issue on the working group or mailing lists?

I saw a proposal: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-2.html

In my opinion this can solve the problem....

I have not seen any discussions that think it is a bad idea to assign several network resources to TLD administrators which will enable them to operate their nameservers according to RFC3258.

When we have reviewed the discussions we felt that your objection against the proposal was because of the size of the assignment. I'm planning to submit revised proposal with a reduced prefix length which better fits with other assignment policies. If you are opposing to the new proposal I would be glad to know as soon as it is submitted.

Yes. Let me clarify my objections: 1) special policy for ccTLDs (if they do not anycast) is not IMHO needed as assignments from (some of the) transits should be enough; 2) special policy for any arbitrary service, if anycast, does not seem justified because it's too open-ended; 3) ccTLD combined with requirement to anycast it appears to be suitably well justified operationally and technically. In addition, a) we have enough address space that allocating a (v6) /32 is not waste. b) I'm strongly opposed to creating any special micro-allocation blocks which is just waiting for getting the worms out hence a). So, I'd say that if the policy proposal is 3) with a (v6) /32, I shouldn't have a problem with it. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings --1589707168-1824570081-1131332849=:12767-- End of address-policy-wg Digest -- This message has been scanned for viruses and potentially harmful content by StreamShield Protector.