October 2006 - address-policy-wg

2006-07 – Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window
by leo vegoda 09 Nov '06

09 Nov '06

Dear Colleagues, During the Address Policy WG session at RIPE 53, we were asked to provide statistics showing - how many of the requests to make a PA assignment involve discussion with the requester; and - how much discussion takes place in those requests. We have prepared a set of statistics showing the number of rounds of messages in a ticket. Please note that tickets often include messages that are not directly related to the specific request. For instance, when an LIR is eligible for an additional allocation discussion can also occur on how to register something in the database, or we may remind them about an unpaid invoice. We looked at all the tickets where we approved PA assignments of prefixes up to and including /21 during the last three complete months of July, August and September in 2006. This was a set of 1100 tickets. The attached graph illustrates: - 80% of requests are approved immediately, or following just one exchange - 15% are approved with just two or three messages being exchanged - 4% of tickets involve a significant amount of discussion These figures show that only a small fraction of LIRs need significant assistance with their decision making. We will be able to dedicate significantly more time to this small group of LIRs if the minimum Assignment Window is raised. I hope you find these data useful when considering my proposal. The full table of results: Exchanges Tickets 0 673 1 214 2 118 3 48 4 11 5 20 7 6 8 4 11 4 12 2 An archive (available as a stream) of the RIPE 53 Address Policy WG webcast is available from our web site at: mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe-53/ap.wmv and my presentation can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/ ipv4_min_aw_size.pdf Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

3 3

2006-04 New Draft Document Published (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)
by Filiz Yilmaz 31 Oct '06

31 Oct '06

PDP Number: 2006-04 Contact e-mail Address Requirements Dear Colleagues We have published a draft document for the proposal described in 2006-04. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-04.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2006-04-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 November 2006. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

3 3

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-04 New Draft Document Published (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)
by Hank Nussbacher 31 Oct '06

31 Oct '06

At 03:19 PM 30-10-06 +0000, Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com wrote: >But the policy has a larger problem. It attempts to >place a stricter requirement on every organization >which has received an assignment from a RIPE member. >In this way it places a requirement on virtually >every organization, commercial and non-commercial, >which exists within our society. I do not believe >that this is justified and I do not believe that >most organizations have any real role to play in >preventing spam or correcting network operational >issues. > >The real issue here is that current RIPE policies >allow RIPE members to wash their hands of all >network operational issues associated with the >addresses which they have assigned to other >organizations. Allow me to disagree. As someone who regularly sends out emails to contact info as located in the various whois databases, I would rate the RIPE info at #1, followed by RADB, APNIC, ARIN and last being LACNIC (no feedback yet from AFRNIC). Some of you may have received these emails over the past 5 years about leaking private ASNs which is sent to all emails I find in whois. I find the RIPE data to be accurate and comprehensive and light years ahead of the data inside LACNIC. I also find the people contacted inside RIPE respond far quicker than those in ARIN (APNIC is even better than ARIN in that respect). So before complaining about RIPE data, best to bring the rest of the world up to the level that RIPE maintains. Regards, Hank Nussbacher http://www.interall.co.il

4 3

RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
by matthew.ford＠bt.com 26 Oct '06

26 Oct '06

People sending comments to this list with the clear intention of supporting the adoption of new policy should take their responsibilities as stewards of the Internet's resources a little more seriously in my opinion. The proposed policy includes the following wording: "To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organisation must: ... c) have a plan for making a reasonable number of /48 assignments within two years" Define 'reasonable'. Folks need to stop focussing on getting rid of the 200 /48 assignments rule and start focussing on developing good, useful policy for the region. In the absence of a better alternative (which 2006-02 is emphatically not), then the current policy must suffice. Regards, Mat > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Lars Lystrup Christensen > Sent: 25 October 2006 08:54 > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment > Policy (2006-02) > > I believe the new proposal is much fairer to smaller ISPs, who currently > are unable to justify assignments for IPv6. Currently we would not be able > to assign 200 /48 in two years and therefore unable to receive IPv6 > address space. However, until we are able to provide IPv6 connectivity, > our customers won't request such IP addresses from us. And since our > customers won't request them, we can't justify requesting from RIPE, who > won't assign since we can't assign at lease 200 /48 in two years.... > > As shown this ends up in a deadlock situation and therefore IPv6 will only > be available to larger ISPs. > > I know IPv6 is still quite a new "feature" and therefore still not widely > used, but unless ISPs get access to IPv6 address space, it won't be more > widely used. > > I'm definitely in favour of the new proposal. > > ______________________________________ > > Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards > > Lars Lystrup Christensen > Network Engineer > LLC11-RIPE > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > > admin(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Stefan Camilleri > > Sent: 24. oktober 2006 12:14 > > To: jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment > > Policy (2006-02) > > > > Hi, > > > > I think that the modifications as proposed, though still not *there* are > a > > big > > improvement on existing text particularly with the dropping of the > > requirement > > for 200 /48 assignments. > > > > I fully support the new Proposal > > > > Regards. > > > > Stephen > > SC4079-RIPE > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > > > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of JORDI > > > PALET MARTINEZ > > > Sent: L-Erbgħa, 27 ta' Settembru 2006 12:02 > > > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > > Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and > > > Assignment Policy (2006-02) > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Same for this one ... Looking for further inputs to this > > > policy proposal. > > > > > > As the discussion period for this proposal > > > (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html) is > > > almost over, I will like to ask for the latest inputs in > > > order to further decide how to proceed. > > > > > > Filiz arranged some stats about the discussion (thanks a lot > > > for that !) last July, and afterwards, even if the discussion > > > period has been extended, I don't recall having seen new comments. > > > > > > The stats don't include my own postings: > > > > > > >>> - there were 39 posts from 14 different individuals about it. > > > >>> > > > >>> - 8 people supported it. > > > >>> > > > >>> - 1 person *seemed* to be in favour of keeping the current policy. > > > >>> > > > >>> - 5 people made comments which I could not identify a > > > clear support > > > >>> or objection. > > > > > > So someone else will like to say anything new or clarify > > > their view in favor or opposition to the proposal ? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Jordi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ********************************************** > > > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > > > > > Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! > > > http://www.ipv6day.org > > > > > > This electronic message contains information which may be > > > privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be > > > for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not > > > the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, > > > distribution or use of the contents of this information, > > > including attached files, is prohibited. > > > > > > > > > > > >

4 3

Comment on 2006-05 (PI Assignment Size)
by Michał Mirosław 26 Oct '06

26 Oct '06

Hello, I support the 2006-05 proposal. We have one client who insisted on getting PI space, but they qualified for at most /27. Then we had to actually request that /27 and have them expierience what prefix filtering does to small PI networks. Alternative way to solve this would be to designate one /8 (or longer; divided among regional registries) that contained only prefixes longer than /24. It would allow for small PI's, be easy to configure filters for, and have a limited influence on global routing table size. But it would need agreement all over the internet. Best Regards, Michal Miroslaw NASK -- Michal Miroslaw <Michal.Miroslaw(a)nask.pl> PL > NASK > Network Administration Division > IP Team

3 2

2005-08 Draft Documents will be edited (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
by Filiz Yilmaz 25 Oct '06

25 Oct '06

PDP Number: 2005-08 Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy Dear Colleagues, The review period for the proposal 2005-08 is over. Following the feedback received, the draft documents will be edited. We will publish the updated text soon and we will tell you when it is available. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08.html Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
by matthew.ford＠bt.com 25 Oct '06

25 Oct '06

That's good news, and saves me typing up my unhappiness with the 2006-01 text as well :) Mat > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering > Sent: 25 October 2006 11:01 > To: Ford,M,Mat,CXR9 R > Cc: llc(a)dansketelecom.com; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and > Assignment Policy (2006-02) > > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 10:44:07AM +0100, matthew.ford(a)bt.com wrote: > > In the absence of a better alternative (which 2006-02 is > emphatically > > not), then the current policy must suffice. > > From the "policy development process" view, this proposal is currently > at the end of the "discussion phase". No consensus was reached, so it > can not go ahead. > > As it was pretty clear that there is a desire to get rid of > the 200-customer > rule, but that this specific wording isn't going to be *the* answer, > Jordi Palet is now working on an updated proposal, which should bring > us further forward. > > The new proposal (actually, two new proposals, one for > 2006-01 and one for > 2006-02) will be circulated "in a few days". > > Gert Doering > -- RIPE AP WG Chair > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 98999 > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 > >

1 0

IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 25 Oct '06

25 Oct '06

Hi all, Same for this one ... Looking for further inputs to this policy proposal. As the discussion period for this proposal (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html) is almost over, I will like to ask for the latest inputs in order to further decide how to proceed. Filiz arranged some stats about the discussion (thanks a lot for that !) last July, and afterwards, even if the discussion period has been extended, I don't recall having seen new comments. The stats don't include my own postings: >>> - there were 39 posts from 14 different individuals about it. >>> >>> - 8 people supported it. >>> >>> - 1 person *seemed* to be in favour of keeping the current policy. >>> >>> - 5 people made comments which I could not identify a clear support or >>> objection. So someone else will like to say anything new or clarify their view in favor or opposition to the proposal ? Regards, Jordi ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

7 7

>>: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 29 November 2006 (Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window)
by Dmitriy V Menzulskiy 19 Oct '06

19 Oct '06

I support those changes. Arguments are the same as Cathy gives. WBR, Dmitry Menzulskiy DM3740-RIPE ----- Переслано: Dmitriy V Menzulskiy/BeeLine дата: 19.10.2006 18:30 ----- address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net написано 19.10.2006 15:26:57: > > I support changing the assignment window to a /21 or even something > larger. When I worked for a company that was a RIPE LIR I found > that the small AW made it very difficult to do my job. I feel it's > more appropriate to give LIRs information about how to make wise and > documented assignments to customers and then assume they're adults > and that they will do the right thing. If they fail in this then > make it harder for them to get a subsequent allocation. Making them > ask permission for every customer assignment is just a pain. > > Thanks! > ---Cathy > > On 10/18/06, Filiz Yilmaz < filiz(a)ripe.net> wrote: > PDP Number: 2006-07 > Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window > > Dear Colleagues > > The Discussion Period for the the proposal 2006-07 has been extended > until 29 November 2006. > > > This proposal suggests the minimum Assignment Window (AW) available > to LIRs should be raised from zero (0) to /21 (2048 IPv4 addresses). > Because the sub-allocation policy references the AW policy, the > sub-allocation policy also needs to be updated. This proposal > suggests that the maximum sub-allocation should be kept at /20 (4096 > IPv4 addresses). > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-07.html > > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments > to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC > Policy Development Officer >

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 29 November 2006 (Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window)
by cja＠daydream.com 19 Oct '06

19 Oct '06

I support changing the assignment window to a /21 or even something larger. When I worked for a company that was a RIPE LIR I found that the small AW made it very difficult to do my job. I feel it's more appropriate to give LIRs information about how to make wise and documented assignments to customers and then assume they're adults and that they will do the right thing. If they fail in this then make it harder for them to get a subsequent allocation. Making them ask permission for every customer assignment is just a pain. Thanks! ---Cathy On 10/18/06, Filiz Yilmaz <filiz(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > PDP Number: 2006-07 > Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window > > Dear Colleagues > > The Discussion Period for the the proposal 2006-07 has been extended > until 29 November 2006. > > > This proposal suggests the minimum Assignment Window (AW) available > to LIRs should be raised from zero (0) to /21 (2048 IPv4 addresses). > Because the sub-allocation policy references the AW policy, the > sub-allocation policy also needs to be updated. This proposal > suggests that the maximum sub-allocation should be kept at /20 (4096 > IPv4 addresses). > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-07.html > > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments > to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC > Policy Development Officer > > >

1 0