August 2006 - address-policy-wg

2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
by Filiz Yilmaz 26 Sep '06

26 Sep '06

PDP Number: 2006-05 PI Assignment Size Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy has been proposed and is now available for discussion. This proposal suggests to have the minimum assignment size for PI assignments to be a /24 when routing is a major issue for a multihoming End User. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 26 September 2006. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

26 83

[info@arin.net: [arin-announce] NRPM version 2006.2 - New Policy Implementations]
by David Kessens 31 Aug '06

31 Aug '06

For your information. Please post followups regarding these policy changes to the address policy working group only. David Kessens --- ----- Forwarded message from Member Services <info(a)arin.net> ----- Delivered-To: arin-announce(a)lists.arin.net From: Member Services <info(a)arin.net> To: ARIN Announce <arin-announce(a)arin.net>, "'Public Policy Mailing List'" <ppml(a)arin.net> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:22:07 -0400 Subject: [arin-announce] NRPM version 2006.2 - New Policy Implementations Reply-To: info(a)arin.net On 9 May 2006, the ARIN Board of Trustees, based on the recommendation of the Advisory Council and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process had been followed, adopted the following policy proposals: 2005-1: Provider-independent IPv6 Assignments for End Sites 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement 2005-9: 4-Byte AS Number These policy proposals have been incorporated into version 2006.2 of the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) which is effective 30 August 2006. NRPM version 2006.2 supersedes previous versions. See Appendix A of the NRPM for information regarding changes to the manual. The NRPM can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html Appendix A can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm_changelog.html On 11 July 2006, the ARIN Board of Trustees added IPv6 Assignments to the ARIN fee schedule. The Board waived all but $500 of the IPv6 Initial Assignment fee through 31 December 2007. The fee schedule can be found at: http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html For information about requesting an IPv6 assignment, please see the guidelines at: http://www.arin.net/registration/guidelines/ipv6_assignment.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ ARIN-announce mailing list ARIN-announce(a)arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce "To Unsubscribe,<mailto:arin-announce-request@arin.net?subject=unsubscribe>." ----- End forwarded message -----

3 2

New IPv4 blocks allocated to RIPE NCC
by leo vegoda 31 Aug '06

31 Aug '06

[Apologies for duplicate mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address ranges 77.0.0.0/8 and 78.0.0.0/7 from the IANA in August 2006. We will begin allocating from these ranges in the near future. The minimum allocation size for these four /8s has been set at /21. 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/ripe-ncc-managed-address-space.html Additionally, please note that two "pilot" prefixes are being announced from each /8. Details of the prefixes, 'pingable' target names and addresses for each prefix can be found on our web site at: http://www.ris.ripe.net/debogon/debogon.html Best regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 1

Fwd: Last Call: 'BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes)
by Henk Uijterwaal 29 Aug '06

29 Aug '06

For those interested in PDP 2005-12... >Begin forwarded message: > >>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary(a)ietf.org> >>Date: August 28, 2006 10:01:15 PM GMT+02:00 >>To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce(a)ietf.org> >>Cc: idr(a)ietf.org >>Subject: Last Call: 'BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space' >>to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes) >>Reply-To: iesg(a)ietf.org >> >>The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG to >>consider the following document: >> >>- 'BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space ' >> <draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-12.txt> as a Proposed Standard >> >>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >>final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the >>iesg(a)ietf.org or ietf(a)ietf.org mailing lists by 2006-09-12. >> >>The file can be obtained via >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-12.txt >> >>The implementation report can be obtained via >>http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/bgp4_impleme.txt >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>IETF-Announce mailing list >>IETF-Announce(a)ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > >----------------------------------------------------------- >Olaf M. Kolkman >NLnet Labs >http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1160438400 + 381600 = 1160820000.

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2006-04 New Policy Proposal (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)
by Koepp, Karsten 29 Aug '06

29 Aug '06

Hi Michele, I also support the goal of the proposal although I believe it will be hard to enforce. > Several ISPs maintain abuse email addresses, but when you submit abuse > reports to the supplied address they send an auto-responder > forcing you to > resubmit the data via a web form. > Think the other way around. 99% of your abuse inbox is spam itself. And people just forward spam to abuse contacts to complain. How can you make sure serious mails are being detected within the junk. A web form is just a measure to make sure abuse complaints reach people and are being dealt with. It is not overdemanded to fill in a form if you ask someone to spend working time solving your problem. YMMV. regards Karsten > What is the RIPE policy on this? > > Surely ISPs should not be making it hard for users / admins > etc., to report > abuse to them > > Regards > > Michele > > > Michele > http://www.mneylon.com/blog/ > http://www.searchenginecookbook.com/ > http://www.irishblogs.info - top Irish blogs/bloggers >

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] Proposal for change to the IPv4 PI allocation policy
by Max Tulyev 28 Aug '06

28 Aug '06

Hi, I warn all my clients that PI (and any kind of their own) address space and/or AS is also a great responsibility. And they sure need a more qualified system administrator to rule it. If client asks for a help ("the Internet doesn't work") and rejects in help with doing some tests from its side - I say I can't help you in that case, goodbye. It is true as well for PI as for PA. Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 11:57:39PM +0400, Max Tulyev wrote: >> Gert Doering wrote: >>> With PA, you can debug from *your* network - with customer's PI, you >>> can't (normally) run probes (traceroute, ping) from *their* IP addresses >>> - and if your PA works, but their PI is filtered, this makes it harder >>> to debug. >> PI means that it is *not* your network administratively and technically. >> If customer have PI and AS - it is an independent part of Internet, and, >> in fact, not your just customer in usual terms. You don't go debug for >> example your downstream's and peer's networks as your, isn't it? > > You need to distinguish between "customers with their own network block, > their own AS number, BGP speaking routers, multiple upstreams, and local > clue" and "customers that want PI space because they don't want to > renumber when they change upstreams". > > The latter sort will want *you* to announce their PI for them, and if > there are any routing problems, yell at you because "the Internet doesn't > work". > > I have no issues with the former sort, especially when there is enough > local clue present. > >>> Furthermore, /24s tend to be damped more quickly and for longer times >>> than /16... >> Again, why? ;) > > Because flap dampening recommendations said so... > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

1 0

Re: [policy-announce] 2006-04 New Policy Proposal (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)
by Jeff Scribner 24 Aug '06

24 Aug '06

Michele, The original proposal provided for enforcement. That part was removed because it crosses into another area of responsibility. However, if the proposal is adopted and then violated, another proposal could be made providing for enforcement. At least that is my understanding of the situation. You might note that I made this proposal because our security department was running into e-mail addresses that didn't work, were missing or directed one to a web site. All of these results dramatically increase the time required to report abuse of an IP address. If the proposal is adopted, I think there will be a lot of people and organizations interested in enforcement. Regards, Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: Michele Neylon To: Jeff Scribner Cc: hph(a)oslo.net ; Filiz Yilmaz ; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 19:50 Subject: Re: [policy-announce] 2006-04 New Policy Proposal (Contact e-mail Address Requirements) Jeff Scribner wrote: > Michele, > > The proposal as written should cover this. The requirement is for a > working e-mail address that will accept messages - not one that will > direct you to a web site. > > Regards, > > Jeff > > Jeff that's fair enough, but what if the Ripe member ignores the policy? Is there any recourse? Michele -- http://www.mneylon.com/blog http://www.irishwebmasterforum.com/ http://www.armchair.ie/

2 1

Re: [policy-announce] 2006-04 New Policy Proposal (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)
by Jeff Scribner 24 Aug '06

24 Aug '06

Michele, The proposal as written should cover this. The requirement is for a working e-mail address that will accept messages - not one that will direct you to a web site. Regards, Jeff From: Michele To: filiz(a)ripe.net ; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Cc: 'Jeffrey L. Scribner' ; 'Hans Petter Holen' Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 08:32 Subject: RE: [policy-announce] 2006-04 New Policy Proposal (Contact e-mail Address Requirements) One question I have about this: "Every organisation controlling an IP address should provide at least one working contact e-mail address where notifications of abuse emanating from that IP address can be sent." Several ISPs maintain abuse email addresses, but when you submit abuse reports to the supplied address they send an auto-responder forcing you to resubmit the data via a web form. What is the RIPE policy on this? Surely ISPs should not be making it hard for users / admins etc., to report abuse to them Regards Michele Michele http://www.mneylon.com/blog/ http://www.searchenginecookbook.com/ http://www.irishblogs.info - top Irish blogs/bloggers

2 1

2006-04 New Policy Proposal (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)
by Filiz Yilmaz 24 Aug '06

24 Aug '06

PDP Number: 2006-04 Contact e-mail Address Requirements Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This proposal suggests that working and up-to-date contact e-mail addresses should be maintained at all times for address space that is registered in the RIPE Database. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-04.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 20 September 2006. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

5 4

2005-02 Last Call for Comments (IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS)
by Filiz Yilmaz 23 Aug '06

23 Aug '06

PDP Number: 2005-02 IP Assignments for anycasting DNS Dear Colleagues The proposal described in 2005-02 is now in its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-2.html During the review phase, we received feedback that suggested improvements to the text: - The resulting policy text should explicitly state that it is for ccTLDs and gTLDs - The text should explicitly state that the RIPE NCC will make assignments directly when a request is submitted through an existing LIR. We have incorporated this in the draft documents that you can find at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-02-draft.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-02-v6-draft.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 September 2006. If we receive no objections, we will publish the new policy after this date. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

3 3