October 2005 - address-policy-wg

IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
by Mohacsi Janos 22 Nov '05

22 Nov '05

Dear All, I have a question regarding the IPv6 address assignment to cc level DNS server. If you don't have answer to this question please forward it to an appropriate working group - sorry for cross-posting this mail to two wg. We have here in Hungary a dilemma: - Traditionally, the IPv4 address of the primary cc level DNS server in of belonged to NIIF/HUNGARNET. - The DNS registration service a while ago was delegated to Council of Hungarian Internet Providers (ISZT) who is also operating the biggest Internet Exchange of Hungary (BIX). All big ISPs in Hungary (including NIIF/HUNGARNET) has right to do the registration via a special interface. - The IPv4 address of the primary cc level DNS server announced by NIIF/HUNGARNET. But ISZT is reorganizing its infrastructure to allocate address from a new PI type IPv4 address space to DNS servers. - The primary hu DNS server is connected to BIX - to be well connected. What IPv6 address space should we allocate to hu primary DNS server? 1. Assign IPv6 address from /32 address space of NIIF/HUNGARNET? - not very optimal since the only transit to hu primary will be NIIF/HUNGARNET - not ISP neutral - easy, no problem from point of view of NIIF/HUNGARNET 2. Assign IPv6 address space from /48 allocated to BIX (based on ripe-256 and ripe-310)? - According to the RIPE documents: "Networks assigned under this policy may not be globally routable" - which problematical since primary DNS servers should be globally reachable. 3. Allocate multiple /48 from IPv6 providers in HUNGARY to primary hu DNS server? - This can be problematical since the answers to DNS queries might be quite big. 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.... Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 00F9AF98: 8645 1312 D249 471B DBAE 21A2 9F52 0D1F 00F9 AF98

19 59

2005-08 New Policy Proposal
by RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator 03 Nov '05

03 Nov '05

PDP Number: 2005-08 Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-ripe-267 is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 2 November 2005. After this date, we will prepare a draft RIPE document. We will let you know when this is available. There is a new mailing list for announcing policy proposals and tracking them through the policy development process. You can subscribe to the policy-announce list at: http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/policy-announce Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC

13 30

(no subject)
by Eri Chatzifotiou 31 Oct '05

31 Oct '05

We are gr.tpp We have a point of presence, which is in Cyprus (Different Country) and for now, we are using a /24 Subnet for their needs. The problem is that they need to anounce this subnet through a different isp then the one that we are using. They want only to anounce the 82.197.100.0 /255 to their isp cooperator. Thank you

1 0

New RIPE Document available: RIPE-353
by RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service 13 Oct '05

13 Oct '05

New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new RIPE Document is available from the RIPE Document store. Ref: ripe-353 Title: ASN Missing In Action, A Comparison of RIR Statistics and RIS Reality Author: Henk Uijterwaal, Rene Wilhelm Date: October 2005 Format: PDF=763999 Obsoletes: Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: Short content description ------------------------- In this paper, we look at Autonomous System Number (ASN) assignments by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and the number of unique ASNs seen by routers on the Internet. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- You can access the RIPE documents in HTML format via our website at the following URL:. http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-353.html The RIPE Document Store is also available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-353.pdf PDF version Kind Regards, RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
by Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com 06 Oct '05

06 Oct '05

> The answer is "the RIPE policies have no answers how to do things that > are in violation of the RIPE policies" - and assigning 10 IPv6 addresses > is against the policy. Assigning 10 IPv6 addresses is *NOT* against RIPE policy! It may come as a surprise to those of you who do not speak English as a native language, but the word "assign" is a synonym of the word "allocate" and both have a very general meaning of distributing something to multiple recipients. The fact that RIR policies use these synonyms in specific and distinct ways does not change the fact that anyone who learns English as a language of communication will learn that these two words mean the same thing and can be substituted for one another. Even worse (Horrors!) these two words can be used in business outside of the context of the RIRs. ISPs can allocate circuit bandwidth to customers, assign them to router ports, distribute IP addresses to them, etc. Inside the business he can certainly assign 10 addresses to his customer, however the very fact that he is choosing to allocate the customer 10 addresses shows that he is doing a private act. Since it is a private act, we don't want to know that he distributed 10 addresses to this customer and therefore, the allotment of 10 addresses does not need to be registered in the RIPE database. If he had given out an entire /64 to the customer we still don't need to see this apportionment in the database. The addresses designated for a customer only need to be seen in the database when the act of earmarking these addresses for customer use is in alignment with the RIPE policy. Presumably, at a technical level, if there is no route created in the service provider's OSPF or ISIS then it doesn't need to be published. But don't take my word for that because I really don't understand what RPE-267 3.3 says. > The policy is a bit vague here, admitted. I agree. --Michael Dillon

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
by Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com 06 Oct '05

06 Oct '05

> Would there be any real value in registering private users in Whois? > How likely is it that the end user could provide assistance to > whoever contacted them? Finally we are getting to the heart of the question which is about administrative procedure, i.e. policies, not about technology. The technology specifies that a "network" should be assigned a /64 but this thing called a "network" may not be an Ethernet broadcast domain. Different people will do different things with devices and this will lead them to use different address allocation strategies. For instance, consider an RS-232 cable daisychained through a factory with modems to handle the signal strength amplification when the signal gets too strong. Imagine 10 devices attached to this daisy chained RS 232 cable which use IPv6 to communicate. One might consider this a network or one might not. Is this decision a public policy decision or not? It really depends on where one puts the boundary between the public domain of the RIR and the private domain of the end user. Where should this boundary be? Is the current definition of the boundary too fuzzy? Does the RIR database contain more detail than it should because of the fuzziness of this boundary? Is the current definition of the boundary too tightly aligned with the 1990's world of ISPs and end users where ISPs use PDH and SDH networks while end users use Ethernet? What should go in the RIR database? What should stay out of the database because it is nobody else's business? --Michael Dillon

2 1

RIPE 51 - Address Policy WG Agenda (Draft)
by Andrea Borgato 05 Oct '05

05 Oct '05

Hello to everybody. Here in the following you can find Address Policy WG final draft of agenda. Regards, Andrea Borgato - Address Policy WG co-chair ----------------------------- CUT HERE ----------------------------- RIPE 51 - Address Policy Working Group Agenda (Draft) When: Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 14:00 - 15:30 Where: Grand Ballroom, Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam A. Administrative Matters - Welcome - Select a scribe - Distribute participants list - Finalise agenda - Approve minutes from RIPE 50: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r50-minutes.html B. Policy overview - Regional policy overview -- status of the PDP and transition to the PDP -- summary of the status of the current regional proposals started under the "beta test of the PDP" and now in "official PDP" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/ - Global policy overview -- Status of the IPv4 Global Policy -- Status of the IPv6 Global Policy C. Policy proposal: #2005-01: IPv4-HD-Ratio Action on: HPH D. Policy proposal: #2005-02: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy Action on: Andreas Baess / Leo Vegoda (short update and current status) E. Policy proposal: #2005-03: IPv6 initial allocation criteria Action on: Andy Furnell / Leo Vegoda (current status and go ahead with discussion from mailing list) F. Policy proposal: #2005-04: definition of an "end site", Eric Schmidt (this definitely needs time for discussion - 15minutes?) G. Policy proposal: #2005-09 "global IPv6 distribution: ICANN/IANA->RIRs" (short update, now formally run through the PDP) H. Policy proposal: #2005-08 (Kurtis Lindqvist, Geoff Huston - RIPE IPv6 change of endsite allocations from /48 to /56) (need time for discussions) Z. Any other Business ----------------------------- CUT HERE -----------------------------

1 0

2005-09 New Policy Proposal
by RIPE NCC Policy Coordinator 04 Oct '05

04 Oct '05

PDP Number: 2005-09 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy has been proposed and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-09.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 1 November 2005. After this date, we will prepare a draft RIPE Document. We will let you know when this is available. Regards Adrian Bedford RIPE NCC

1 0