January 2004 - address-policy-wg

Re: Joint policy? (was:RE: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region
by Jeff Williams 20 Jan '04

20 Jan '04

Marcelo and all, marcelo bagnulo wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > I guess that your point is not strictly related with this particular IPv6 > policy proposal but in general about if policies should be common or not. > (so i changed the subject) Yes in part, this is the point I was trying to make and support from others comments/remarks. > > > IMHO not taking into account what ather regions are doing is clearly a > mistake (i don't think anyone thinks otherwise) Agreed. > > > OTOH, i am not sure that a joint policy should be the default option. > Different regions have very different realities and policies should be > adapted to this realities. Yes to a very small degree I agree. However in allocation minimums and maximums I and our members in all regions, do not agree. > > > Cooordination is required and so forums like this one to coordinate policies > and where people from other regions can give their opinion on other region's > policies are needed Agreed here strongly. However it again seems that sharing these discussions with other regions seems to be something some participants such as Brian have seemingly been not desiring to do... > > > So i guess that we should try to do joint policies when it is possible and > when a policy is suitable for all the regions, but i am not very confident > that this will be the case always Of course in some instances joint of global policies will not be adequate for some regions. However this should be the rare exception, not the norm. > > > Coming back to the IPv6 case... > > For this particular case of IPv6, i understand that several regions are > having problems whith the policy. > APNIC people have brought lot of issues about this policy to this list and > also a proposal to waive the 200 /48 assignments has been discussed in ARIN, > so perhaps there is possibility here for a joint policy. If we were to do > this, how do think we should continue? First we all should be sharing discussions on issue areas of common consideration. And from their ICANN should set or incorporate any such policy which the RIR's must conform to after of course, stakeholder/user input and considerations is based on a measured consensus... > > > Regards, marcelo > > > -----Mensaje original----- > > De: global-v6-admin(a)lists.apnic.net > > [mailto:global-v6-admin@lists.apnic.net]En nombre de Jeff Williams > > Enviado el: lunes, 19 de enero de 2004 12:16 > > Para: mbagnulo(a)ing.uc3m.es > > CC: Kosuke Ito; German Valdez; Izumi Okutani; global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net; > > icann board address > > Asunto: Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region > > > > > > Marcelo and all, > > > > The issue is not whether Lacnic has a great need now for > > IPv6 addresses or not, or wheater other other RIR's have their > > own minimum allocation policy. Rather the issue is should or should > > not any such allocation policy be uniform across all RIR's and > > how should that policy be determined. > > > > What is seemingly happening is history repeating itself again > > in that each > > region is jumping to a conclusion without consideration enough for > > the future and desiring to be far to restrictive due to special > > interests. We saw allot of this during Jon Postels tenure > > and it lead to a huge mess... > > > > marcelo bagnulo wrote: > > > > > Hi Kosuke, > > > > > > > I would not like to see avalanche multiplication on relaxing > > > > the allocation conditions initiating from LACNIC to all other > > > > regions... This is my worry. > > > > > > While i am not arguing whether or not having common policy is > > the right way > > > to go, I really don't see how this avalanche can be caused by the policy > > > proposed by lacnic. > > > I mean, this policy only applies to the lacnic region where the IPv6 > > > requests so far are measures in tens (a few tens i think), so i > > don't think > > > that an avalanche is likely in the region. Moreover, the proposed policy > > > requests that the LIR has to provide IPv6 services to customers > > physically > > > located _in_ the lacnic region. > > > > > > With respect to all other regions, rirs in these regions still have its > > > policy so, i don't see how this can affect them. > > > > > > the motivation for the lacnic policy proposal is that, as it has been > > > mentioned in this list, the community is not applying for IPv6 > > address space > > > becuase they feel they will not meet the 200 /48 allocations in > > the next 2 > > > years. Moreover, they are not planning to have them, so they > > know they don't > > > qualify for it. > > > > > > AFAIU, the goal of the current policy is to assign address > > space to people > > > that want to actually provide IPv6 services. > > > The proposed policy attempts to do that. The imposed condition does not > > > depends on the adoption of IPv6 in the internet, but in the > > efforts made by > > > the one who obtained the allocation to provide IPv6 services. > > So the policy > > > asks that in order to obtain an allocation, the LIR has to provide IPv6 > > > services to its customers in the region. IMHO this would enable > > obtaining an > > > address block to those who want to provide IPv6 but don't > > really think they > > > will reach the 200 customers in 2 years (which is considered to > > be the most > > > common case in the lacnic region so far) > > > > > > Regards, marcelo > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Kosuke > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Williams wrote: > > > > > German and all, > > > > > > > > > > I wonder when if ever LACNIC will be seeking advisory input from > > > > > the stakeholders/users in their region? I also wonder if LACNIC > > > > > does seek such input, that the desires and requirements of those > > > > > participating stakeholders/users will be adheared to in a > > responsible > > > > > and direct way? > > > > > > > > > > German Valdez wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Hi Izumi > > > > >> > > > > >>sorry for delay > > > > >> > > > > >>It is intention of the RIR to work in common policies, > > like the IPv6 > > > > one, > > > > >>when this is possible. > > > > >> > > > > >>Nevertheless, this IPv6 policy proposal is the result of > > a regional > > > > need. > > > > >>So far has accomplished all the step of our Policy > > > > Development Process. > > > > >> > > > > >>Even though common policies may work well they are not > > bindig for the > > > > RIR. > > > > >> > > > > >>We are aware that this proposal is broken a common > > policy. For this > > > > reason > > > > >>we are sharing this criteria with the Global IPv6 community. > > > > >> > > > > >>This 45 days period of comment (which ends at january > > 23rd) is not > > > > part of > > > > >>the policy development process, however is a faculty of LACNIC's > > > > Board to > > > > >>do this. The reason was to recieve more comments from the global > > > > community > > > > >>before the Board made a decision. > > > > >> > > > > >>Regards > > > > >> > > > > >>German Valdez > > > > >>Policy Liaison > > > > >>LACNIC > > > > >> > > > > >>At 12:07 AM 1/7/2004, Izumi Okutani wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>>It had been my understanding that IPv6 policy would be > > co-ordinated > > > > >>>among the RIRs, but this seems to imply a regional > > policy like IPv4. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>That's also one method of the policy process that's > > proved to work > > > > >>>well, but it should at least be a concious decision by the > > > > RIRs(or its > > > > >>>communities). > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Could someone from the RIRs share the position about this? > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Izumi > > > > >>>JPNIC > > > > >>> > > > > >>>From: German Valdez <german(a)lacnic.net> > > > > >>>Subject: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region > > > > >>>Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:16:29 -0300 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>FYI LACNIC is calling for last comments for new policies to > > > > be applied > > > > >>> > > > > >>>next > > > > >>> > > > > >>>>year. One of this policies is a new criteria for IPv6 Initial > > > > allocation. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>This proposal is the result of the analysis of the > > LACNIC IPv6 WG > > > > and the > > > > >>>>discussion held during our Open Policy Forum in The Havana, Cuba > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>You can review this proposal at > > http://lacnic.net/en/last-call.html > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>On december 9th we started a 45 days period for > > comments for these > > > > >>>>policies, including the IPv6 one. Comments will be received > > > > through our > > > > >>>>policy public list politicas(a)lacnic.net, subscription > > to this list > > > > is open > > > > >>>>at http://lacnic.net/en/lists.html. Any comments are welcomed. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>Regards > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>German Valdez > > > > >>>>Policy Liaison > > > > >>>>LACNIC > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>_______________________________________________ > > > > >>>>global-v6 mailing list > > > > >>>>global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > > >>>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>_______________________________________________ > > > > >>>global-v6 mailing list > > > > >>>global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > > >>>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > >> > > > > >>_______________________________________________ > > > > >>global-v6 mailing list > > > > >>global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > > >>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jeffrey A. Williams > > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k > > members/stakeholders strong!) > > > > > "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from > > others" - > > > > > Pierre Abelard > > > > > > > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > > > > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > > > > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > > > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > > > > > =============================================================== > > > > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security > > > > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > > > > > E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com > > > > > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > global-v6 mailing list > > > > > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > **********IPv6 Internet Wonderland!************ > > > > Kosuke Ito, Master Planning and Steering Group > > > > IPv6 Promotion Council of Japan > > > > (Visiting Researcher, SFC Lab. KEIO University) > > > > Tel:+81-3-5209-4588 Fax:+81-3-3255-9955 > > > > Cell:+81-90-4605-4581 > > > > mailto: kosuke(a)v6pc.jp http://www.v6pc.jp/ > > > > Lifetime e-mail: kosuke(a)stanfordalumni.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > global-v6 mailing list > > > > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > global-v6 mailing list > > > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > > > Regards, > > > > -- > > Jeffrey A. Williams > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) > > "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - > > Pierre Abelard > > > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > > =============================================================== > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > > E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com > > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > global-v6 mailing list > > global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 16 Jan '04

16 Jan '04

>Yes, I know that it's a very special case, and it could be done by >a "swamp" (or a random PI) /24 just fine. But I'm very much in favour of >having official ways to do things that need doing - and I'm convinced >that this is a good thing to do. A "swamp" /24 gets through more legacy filters than a random PI /24. Therefore the policy should specify that these /24s come from the former class C range. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
by Andreas Bäß/Denic 16 Jan '04

16 Jan '04

Hello! In addition to the criteria that leaked out to list a few days ago I have added the technical problem that is solved by deploying anycast for DNS with a lower number of server names to the list of requirements to get an allocation. So the suggested policy would be: RIPE should be able to allocate a single /24 IPv4 and a /32 IPv6 address block for the operation of anycast DNS servers if: - the operator serves a TLD zone - the number of (planned?) nameservers would lead to a truncation of the authority/additional section in a DNS delegation response containing the NS RRset in [draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-00.txt 2.9] As far as DENIC is concerned we would love to see this policy in effect as our additional section is already truncated and we would need to remove names from the authority section to gain more space for V6 glues. But we think it is a good thing to keep the network diversity that we have. See you in Amsterdam Andreas Baess

2 1

Re: [hm-staff] RE: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA allocation size
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 16 Jan '04

16 Jan '04

>No-one from the APNIC Secretariat has made any comments about the >proposed policy. The reference to APNIC occurred in a sentence by >Jeff Williams. Things got a bit confused from thereon.. Anyone who is involved in any area of Internet policymaking anywhere in the world, *MUST* be aware who Jeff Williams is and what he does. According to this URL, "Jeff Williams is a fake and an impostor". http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg00615.html He seems to like spending his time creating confusion and stirring up trouble for people working on Internet related policy. If you can read German there is a great article about him here http://www.wortfeld.de/2003/08/das_emailphantom Please don't take any of his comments seriously. --Michael Dillon

2 1

ARIN to allocate from 70.0.0.0/8
by Leslie Nobile 16 Jan '04

16 Jan '04

Hello- ARIN received the IPv4 address block 70.0.0.0/8 from the IANA on Jan. 15, 2004. In the near future, ARIN will begin making allocations from this new block. This will include allocations of /20 and shorter prefixes, according to ARIN's minimum allocation policy. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. For informational purposes, a list of ARIN's currently administered IP blocks can be found under "CIDR Blocks" at: http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html Regards, Leslie Nobile Director, Registration Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

1 0

RE: [hm-staff] RE: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA allocation size
by Michel Py 15 Jan '04

15 Jan '04

> Michael.Dillon(a)radianz.com wrote: > Anyone who is involved in any area of Internet > policymaking anywhere in the world, *MUST* be aware > who Jeff Williams is and what he does. [snip] > Please don't take any of his comments seriously. Thank you.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA allocation size
by Jeff Williams 15 Jan '04

15 Jan '04

Hans and all, You are mistaken Hans. It would benefit you and everyone here if you would track Apnic a little closer... Hans Petter Holen wrote: > Dear WG, > As I have seen no proposals to prolong this process, we have consensus on > this matter. > > Seasons Greetings, > Hans Petter Holen > Address Policy WG Chair > > |Dear WG, > |I would like to call for closure on this matter. As this has > |been presented and discussed at the last RIPE meeting and > |proposed to the list as a formal proposal I would like to > |declare consensus on this issue. > | > |There have been discussion on the mainlinglist with some > |critical comments that it is my understanding has been > |clearified. (This proposal does not affect the payment scedule > |or membership structure and it does not affecting the PI policy). > | > |With this I would normaly declare concensus but as no deadline > |was set for the discussion I propose a 1 week last call for > |objections to the process on this matter. If I receive > |objections I propose to set a I month comment period before > |calling for closure on this matter. > | > |Best Regards, > |Hans Petter Holen > |Address Policy WG Chair > | > ||-----Original Message----- > ||From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > ||[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering > ||Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:31 PM > ||To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > ||Subject: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA > ||allocation size > || > ||Hi, > || > ||this was discussed on the list before the last RIPE meeting, > |and we had > ||it on the address policy working group meeting (presented by me). > || > ||I think we mostly have consensus on this issue, but I want to present > ||it as a formal proposal, before it's incorporated into the policy. > || > || > ||PROPOSAL: > || > || * the minimum initial allocation size (for new LIRs) is reduced from > || a /20, as of today, to a /21. > || (If a new LIR can demonstrate need for a bigger initial > |allocation, > || they can get a larger address block. This will not be changed). > || > || * the requirement to show an immediate need for 25% of the allocated > || address space is removed for the "minimum initial allocation" > || > || > ||The motivation for that is that under the current policy, > ||startup LIRs that do not already hold address space cannot get > ||an initial PA allocation (which would be a /20 as of today, or > ||bigger), because in many cases, they cannot demonstrate > ||immediate need, or prior utilization of sufficient address space. > || > ||To work around this, many startup LIRs use PI address space as > ||a start, and when they have filled enough of this, apply for > ||their own PA again. > ||The problem with this is that in the end, it's very likely > ||that more than one route will end up in the global BGP table > ||(where one PA route would be sufficient), and also it > ||encourages lying to the RIRs (PI space must not be distributed > ||to third parties, i.e., LIR customers). > || > || > ||The drawback of the changes are that it's potentially wasting > ||address space for "very small LIRs" (that would be happy with > ||a /23 PI space and will now get a "huge" /21). The wastage > ||would only happen for very small LIRs that will never grow to > ||fill the initial /21. > ||A rough calculation shows that "1000 new LIR /21 allocations" > ||would need a /11, which is not an unbearable strain on the > ||conservation side, judging from the total number of LIRs in > ||RIPE land today. > || > ||A second drawback of this is that people may need to adapt > ||their BGP filters to permit /21s from the network block(s) > ||where these allocations are made from. So the RIPE NCC needs > ||to document this accordingly, and ideally, well in advance. > || > ||Gert Doering > || -- NetMaster > ||-- > ||Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: > ||57785 (56883) > || > ||SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net > ||Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > ||80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > || > | Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

5 11

Re: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA allocation size
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 14 Jan '04

14 Jan '04

>> So please: constructive criticism is welcome, but things like >> "all that you do is wrong, because APNIC is doing something!" >> (and no further reason or detail given) are just wasting our >> time. >excuse! where did i say that? please do not put stupid words into >my keyboard, i do that well enough. I suppose Randy has a killfile that discards messages from j-e-f-f w-i-l-l-i-a-m-s so he didn't realize that Gert was replying to one of Jeff's messages to the list. >>> So if we send out a formal proposal to change RIPE things to >>> RIPE lists, and nobody from the RIPE community objects - what's >>> wrong with assuming consensus, then? >i still consider this unwise, and for the reasons i stated. and, >in the face of such statements, i do not consider pointing out that >we are making, or proposing to make, policy that affects the global >internet a waste of time. I agree with Randy here. The regional boundaries are very fuzzy. The Internet routes across these boundaries as if they were not there. Many companies operate networks in more than one region. I was born in the ARIN region, now I live in the RIPE region and I work for a company whose network spans ARIN, RIPE and APNIC regions. Consensus on a RIPE mailing list could be a way to ignore what is happening in other regions and it could be a way to lock out other people in the RIPE region who haven't thought of looking at the mailing list. I know that the IETF uses mailing list consensus very successfully but the IETF is doing a very different job from RIPE. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 13 Jan '04

13 Jan '04

>I don't claim that ARIN or ICANN or DENIC are not special, or are not >important for the functioning of the Internet as a whole. ICANN isn't special. They don't offer any infrastructure services. However, ARIN and RIPE maintain resgistry databases which are published in the form of a whois directory. This is part of the Internet infrastructure. DENIC hosts the .de top level domain and provides an authoritative DNS service. That is also part of the infrastructure. If an organization wants special treatment, first they have to show us that they operate a service that is a part of the Internet infrastructure. Then they have to show that this service is special enough to be called "critical". You are right that everyone forwards packets and that is not special enough. But what if someone operates a SIP network to carry VoIP calls for 112 (999) calls? Maybe that would make a part of their network into critical infrastructure. When making policy it is best to think ahead into the future a bit and make sure that they new policy will work for a few years, at least. --Michael Dillon

13 26

RE: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
by Daniel Monteith 13 Jan '04

13 Jan '04

/24 if only :) I believe currently its the LIR initial allocation boundary that's the minimum guaranteed not to be filtered. I would welcome a move by the ISP's (mainly a couple of tier 1's) to relax this so that BGP multihoming for the small people becomes easier and more efficient. I am sure we are getting to the stage when route table size is not so much of an issue anymore. Cheers Dan -----Original Message----- From: Andre Chapuis [mailto:chapuis@ip-plus.net] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 3:43 PM To: Daniel Karrenberg; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure Agreed, And what about defining an address-range where every ISP opens its filter up to /29 (as an example) ? This would deal with both anycast and address-space conservation. Let's show that we (as ISPs) are not bound to the /24 forever ! André At 10:23 12.01.2004, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >This discussion is *not* about address policy, >it really is about ** routing policy! ** >The goal is to get prefixes propagated. >They could live in any odd part of the address space! > >Routing policy is made by ISPs. (period) > >In order to provide hints to ISPs making such policy I have previolusly >proposed a *registry* for "special" prefixes with some general >categories like: > > - root server > - TLD server > - second level name server > - internet search engine > - other important prefix (see remarks section ;-) > - .... > >Such a registry could be provided by the RIRs and used by the ISPs when >defining and implementing their routing policy. The art here is to >design the categories and to decide which ones can be policed. It is >easy to determine and to check regularly if a prefix contains name >servers for instance. Other categories should be "self-declaration". >ISPs can then decide if and how to use such a registry. > >Is this something that provides added value to ISPs? >Is it something that is useful for those using such prefixes? > >Daniel > > >PS: If getting any address space at all is a problem for these applications, >this needs to be addressed. Maybe it is already addressed by adjusting >the "initial" usage requirements back to "nil" or some reasonable low level and >reducing the initial allocation size. > >This is a different discussion which belongs here, but I do not reeally follow >it anymore, so pardon me if I just assume it is moving along. -------------------------------------------------------- Andre Chapuis IP+ Backbone Engineering AS3303 Swisscom Enterprise Solutions Ltd Genfergasse 14, CH-3050 Bern +41 31 893 89 61 chapuis(a)ip-plus.net CCIE #6023 --------------------------------------------------------

6 5