On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 04:30:34PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:

...

PDP Number: 2009-06 Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html

I partially agree, but with comments. True, it does not relate directly to address allocation, but it does relate to the number of routing entries that will appear in the routing tables. More importantly why are we calling those prefixes then "Provider Aggregated"? If they are not aggregated anymore by the above change? Simple example: if 1000 ISPs will take their /32 and announce their 65536 more specifics out of that then we will have 655.360.000 routes. That is something that a lot of hardware vendors and of course the large networks will love to see. The ones who will hurt by this will be the small ISPs who will want to de-aggregate, not the big fishes who are able to do whatever they want anyway and buy bigger boxes to handle larger routing tables. Filtering happens anyway, so a /32 will most likely be the minimum space in the PA range that one can announce anyway, which does mean that an ISP with a /20 could split it up into /32's. Thus, indeed having the text about what to announce and not to announce in the Allocation Policy is not required, especially as it is covered in other documents, but having maybe at least a pointer to those documents might be a good idea. To twist this in another way: could there be added a requirement that prefixes are properly registered in RPSL? That would help ISPs decide which prefixes should be there and how to filter, with maybe having exclusions. Greets, Jeroen

Hi Jeroen, Jeroen Massar wrote: [...]

To twist this in another way: could there be added a requirement that prefixes are properly registered in RPSL? That would help ISPs decide which prefixes should be there and how to filter, with maybe having exclusions.

Thanks for bringing this idea forward (again) :-)

Greets, Jeroen

I doubt that a formal policy to require (reasonably complete and detailed) documentation of routing policies amongst ASes will reach consensus, but I'd love to see it tried once again :-) Any such attempt would probably be best made in the framework of the Routing-WG. Wilfried. PS: btw. even if adopted in a region, it would only make real sense if adopted on a global scale and within the framework of a global(ly integrated) IRR. Dreams....

Filiz Yilmaz wrote:

PDP Number: 2009-06 Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy

We are supporting this as well. Ragnar Anfinsen Lyse Tele AS 

we do not support this proposal and we would garant routing for min ipv6-PI block assignement. bst regards. F. Le mercredi 27 mai 2009 à 18:03 +0200, alain.bidron@orange-ftgroup.com a écrit :

...

A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion.

You can find the full proposal at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 23 June 2009.

I fully support this proposal.

Best regards

Alain Bidron FT/PRESIDENCE/NCPI/NAD/EAS/NAN

Head of Naming Addressing Numbering Unit

tel. + 33 1 57 36 17 24

mob. + 33 6 87 65 90 94 alain.bidron@orange-ftgroup.com

********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. ********************************

Le mercredi 27 mai 2009 à 18:36 +0200, Jeroen Massar a écrit :

Frederic wrote:

...

we do not support this proposal and we would garant routing for min ipv6-PI block assignement.

RIPE NCC cannot guarantee anything regarding routing.

yes we know. but we suggest that may be a good rule to write somewhere that it's ask to LIR to garant routing. so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let choice for operator so it let choice to not garant routing. bst regards. Frederic.

You need to communicate with the rest of the parties where you want your prefix to go if they want to accept it or not.

Please see: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html#routability (see section 4.2. Routability Not Guaranteed in RIPE-466) As mentioned in the text of the proposal.

Clearly there is a lot of confusion about this, thus, as I mentioned in my other mail, the text can be amended by removing those statements, but then there should definitely be a clear link to the above document.

Greets, Jeroen

Hello Frederic,

so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let choice for operator so it let choice to not garant routing.

Routing a block of address space *IS* the choice of the operator, and nobody can guarantee that a block of addresses is routed everywhere. RIPE policies will always leave this choice to the operators. It is even in the RIPE Terms of Reference: "IP networks collaborating in RIPE remain under the executive authority of their respective organisations". RIPE does give guidelines for network operators. A good example is http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-469.html#3 . - Sander

On 27/05/2009 17:41, Frederic wrote:

but we suggest that may be a good rule to write somewhere that it's ask to LIR to garant routing.

so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let choice for operator so it let choice to not garant routing.

from my other mail to this mailing list: "- just because an organisation hasn't announced an ipv6 prefix on the Internet-with-a-capital-I[*], that doesn't mean they aren't using the address space for other entirely valid purposes." Frederic, can you please explain why a LIR which: 1. requires an ipv6 allocation for use on a private network 2. meets all the other requirements of the IPv6 address allocation policy 3. requires unique addresses (e.g. interconnecting with other private ipv6 networks) ... shouldn't be granted a RIPE IPv6 allocation? Or are you trying to say that there is only a single valid IPv6 network in the world? Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick@inex.ie [*] whatever the "Internet-with-a-capital-I" means

I observe that RIPE policies can and do dictate routing requirements. Further, routing and address allocation are linked. Changing one will affect the other

It is quite common for policy to dictate one thing, but the operator community to do the other, address-policy appears to be being steered somewhat by the operator community now (see 2006-05 for instance), perhaps we need some synchronisation with routing-wg here? Dave. ------------------------------------------------ David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Limited http://www.clara.net -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net on behalf of Shane Kerr Sent: Fri 5/29/2009 09:46 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: RIPE policies and routing, was Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) All, I am neutral on this proposal, but I do have some thoughts about an assertion that has been made several times in the discussion: On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 01:09 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:

On 26/05/2009 15:30, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:

...

PDP Number: 2009-06 Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy

I support this proposal for the usual arguments:

- RIPE are not the routing police - important to maintain separation of address assignment policy from routing policy

I think the idea that RIPE is not the routing police was mostly created to prevent people from calling in the RIPE NCC when someone would not peer with them or otherwise accept their advertisements. I do not think that this idea is meant to say that RIPE policies cannot include any routing requirements. For example, in the ASN policy (currently RIPE 463) we see: Current guidelines require a network to be multi-homed for an AS Number to be assigned. Requests must show the routing policy of the Autonomous System. As far as "policing" goes, RIPE is also not the DNS police, but we seem to be quite happy to restrict reverse delegations based on a huge set of checks (e-mail checks? really??): http://www.ripe.net/rs/reverse/delcheck/delcheck_descr.html If we look at the global IPv6 allocation and assignment policy shared by all RIRs (currently RIPE 466 in the RIPE region), they have the same principles, one of which is "aggregation". The text reads (in part): Wherever possible, address space should be distributed in a hierarchical manner, according to the topology of network infrastructure. This is necessary to permit the aggregation of routing information by ISPs and to limit the expansion of Internet routing tables. This goal is particularly important in IPv6 addressing, where the size of the total address pool creates significant implications for both internal and external routing. IPv6 address policies should seek to avoid fragmentation of address ranges. Note the last sentence there especially. I observe that RIPE policies can and do dictate routing requirements. Further, routing and address allocation are linked. Changing one will affect the other. Otherwise we wouldn't bother trying to make allocations that can be easily aggregated. I am *not* saying that it is a good idea to put routing requirements into policies. But we should not reject such requirements simply because "RIPE are not the routing police". Cheers, -- Shane

Hi, On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 09:54:14AM +0100, David Freedman wrote:

(see 2006-05 for instance), perhaps we need some synchronisation with routing-wg here?

We're right in the middle of this :-) The goal is (as has been presented in the Friday plenary at the last RIPE meeting) to get rid of the routing requirements in the address policy documents, *while at the same time* coming up with a good routing recommendation / requirements document from the routing WG. The routing WG already produced RIPE-399, which might already cover all our worries (need to re-read it myself). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

A proposal to remove it in the ARIN region was just introduced as well. -Scott On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Jerzy Pawlus <Jerzy.Pawlus@cyf-kr.edu.pl> wrote:

Hi,

...

PDP Number: 2009-06 Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy

I support this policy.

Unfortunately other RIR's like ARIN still have this routing requirement

Regards,

Jurek