September 2006 - address-policy-wg

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

2006-07 New Policy Proposal (Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window)
by Filiz Yilmaz 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

PDP Number: 2006-07 Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy has been made and is now available for discussion. 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 proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 10 October 2006. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

5 7

2006-06 New Policy Proposal (IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period)
by Filiz Yilmaz 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

PDP Number: 2006-06 IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This proposal is to have the RIPE NCC allocate address space to Local Internet Registries (LIRs) based on their one-year needs. In other words, it suggests setting a maximum allocation period of 12 months. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-06.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 10 October 2006. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

3 2

Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 28 Sep '06

28 Sep '06

Hi all, Sorry confused stats. Ignore the previous email ... As the discussion period for this proposal (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.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 9 posts from 8 individuals about it. >>> >>> - 5 people supported it. 1 of these made some comments though, that he >>> prefers a longer prefix than a /32 clearly in his mail. >>> >>> - 1 person stated he supports "PI" but he is not supporting this proposal. >>> >>> - 2 people said "No". 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.

10 18

PI vs PA in routing table
by Max Tulyev 28 Sep '06

28 Sep '06

Hello! Is there a graphs shows how much prefixes in global route table are PA and how much - PI (maybe in percents)? And also this one year-by-year (monthly?)? Maybe there is no real "route table PI pollution" trouble in the real world? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

4 4

2006-04 Draft Document will be produced (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Sep '06

28 Sep '06

PDP Number: 2006-04 Contact e-mail Address Requirements Dear Colleagues, The discussion period for the proposal 2006-04, Contact e-mail Address Requirements has ended. 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. A draft document will now be prepared for review. We will publish the document in about four weeks. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-04.html Regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

9 16

Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-02)
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 27 Sep '06

27 Sep '06

Hi all, As the discussion period for this proposal (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.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.

1 0

2005-02 implementation: IP assignments for anycasting DNS
by leo vegoda 26 Sep '06

26 Sep '06

Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we will be able to accept e-mailed requests for assignments for anycasting DNS servers from 2 October 2006. The request form and supporting notes will be available from the RIPE Document Store at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/internet-registries.html We will make a separate announcement when it is possible to make requests via the LIR Portal. Assignments for anycasting DNS will come from reserved blocks: * IPv4 Anycast Assignments (/24) from 194.0.0.0/18 * IPv6 Anycast Assignments (/48) from 2001:0678::/29 You may want to update your filters. Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

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

2005-12 Proposal Accepted (4-Byte AS Number Policy)
by Filiz Yilmaz 25 Sep '06

25 Sep '06

PDP Number: 2005-12 4-Byte AS Number Policy Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2005-12 has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-12.html One policy document was affected by this proposal and now is updated and published: Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies and Procedures, ripe-389 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/asn-assignment.html Thank you for your input. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0