September 2004 - address-policy-wg

IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "c)"
by Laura Cobley 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

Dear Colleagues, As explained in the email sent on Mon, 14 Jun 2004: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2004/msg00240.html This is the second mail request for clarification of the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy. Below is an excerpt from the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy: 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria "c)" "To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organisation must [...] plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it will assign /48s by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation" LIRs who operate closed/private networks appear not to qualify because the address space in these networks will not be advertised. Was this the community's intention? Best Regards, Laura Cobley Registration Services RIPE NCC

9 12

Fwd: [Apnic-announce] Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update
by leo vegoda 23 Sep '04

23 Sep '04

Hi, APNIC have announced a change in the default behaviour of their Whois server. The change will be made on 30 September. People using their Whois service from this region may be interested in the announcement. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC Begin forwarded message: > From: APNIC Secretariat <secretariat(a)apnic.net> > Date: September 23, 2004 2:02:27 am BST > To: apnic-announce(a)apnic.net > Cc: Subject: [Apnic-announce] Privacy of customer assignment records - > implementation update > Reply-To: apnic-talk(a)apnic.net, secretariat(a)apnic.net > > Dear colleagues, > > This is an important announcement on the implementation of APNIC > approved proposal prop-007-v001 regarding privacy of customer > assignment records. The proposal document, presentation, minutes, and > discussion are available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-007-v001.html > > The APNIC Secretariat will be implementing this proposal on 30 > September 2004. > > Please note that after this date, customer assignment objects will no > longer be visible in the APNIC Whois Database, unless the APNIC > account holder chooses to make public the customer records for their > allocated address range. > > A set of Frequently Asked Questions about this project is now > available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/info/faq/privacy-faq.html > > If you have any concerns or questions regarding this policy, please > contact the APNIC helpdesk at: > > E-mail: helpdesk(a)apnic.net > Phone: +617 3858 3188 > Fax: +617 3858 3199 > > Regards > > ______________________________________________________________________ > APNIC Secretariat <secretariat(a)apnic.net> > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61-7-3858-3100 > PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Fax: +61-7-3858-3199 > ______________________________________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > Apnic-announce mailing list > Apnic-announce(a)lists.apnic.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-announce >

2 1

draft-hain-ipv6-pi*
by Tony Hain 22 Sep '04

22 Sep '04

Per request, the pointers to the current PI drafts are: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-07.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-use-07.txt As the USE draft discusses, the exchange points are likely to have a more prominent role than they do in the PA deployment model. For the obvious discussion about how this is impacted by natural impediments, there is an example for exception prefixes at: http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/GrandCanyon.htm Depending on where these prefixes aggregate, there may or may not be any need for distributing these exception prefixes beyond one exchange point. In any case the only entities that need to know the detail are the ones directly involved in sorting it out. Tony

1 0

Additional supporting document for IANA->RIR IPv6 policy proposal
by Dominic Spratley 17 Sep '04

17 Sep '04

Dear Colleagues, The following informational paper "IPv6 address space management" was posted to the APNIC sig-policy mailing list by Geoff Huston, APNIC Secretariat. We have forwarded it to the Address Policy Working Group mailing list for your information. The document can also be found at: http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2004/08/msg00066.html Best regards Dominic Spratley Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: ETNO comments on AD ratio for IPv4 addresses allocation
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 16 Sep '04

16 Sep '04

> [ ... ] >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). Up to this point it sounds reasonable and well-balanced to me, >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. but that particular reasoning in "5-": "whose existence is only justified by management overhead of large registries..." seems to be slightly off the mark? >6- No additional impact on registrations is seen in RIPE region, as >infrastructure assignments are already registered in the database. > [ ... ] Wilfried ( https://cert.aco.net/ ) _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

ETNO comments on AD ratio for IPv4 addresses allocation
by Debecker J.L. 16 Sep '04

16 Sep '04

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 Europes 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)

1 0

New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
by leo vegoda 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2001:5000::/20 from the IANA in September 2004. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our web site at: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html> Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE 49 Address Policy WG Draft Agenda
by Andrea Borgato 08 Sep '04

08 Sep '04

Hi All, Please see below the RIPE Address Policy WG Draft Agenda Day 1: Tuesday, 21 September 2004, 16:00 - 17:30 Day 2: Thursday, 22 September 2004, 09:00 - 10:30 Room: Medici A. Administrative Matters - Welcome - Select a scribe - Distribute participants list - Finalise agenda - Approve minutes from RIPE 48: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r48-minutes.html B. RIPE NCC and other Updates (Filiz Yilmaz, RIPE NCC) - RIPE NCC policy implementation & regional statistics. - Policy discussion and decisions in other RIR regions - Internet Number Resource statistics C. ICANN ASO AC Update (TBD, ICANN ASO AC) D. ICANN ASO AC - A View From Outside (A volunteer) E. Discussion Resulting From ICANN ASO Presentations F. Policy Development Process Hans Petter Holen, et al G. Policy Discussion - IPv6 (changes to the initial allocation criteria) Andy Furnell, LINX - Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs Paul Wilson, APNIC - Whois Registration (What should be in Whois and why) Eva Ericsson Rabete, TeliaSonera --Possible topics-- - Paul Wilson's updated proposal: HD Ratio for IPv4 Allocations Y. Open Microphone Z. AOB Andrea Borgato - RIPE Address Policy WG co-chair

1 0