February 2007 - address-policy-wg

2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
by Filiz Yilmaz 27 Feb '07

27 Feb '07

PDP Number: 2006-02 IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy Dear Colleagues The Discussion Period for the proposal 2006-06 has been extended until until 19 March 2007. This proposal is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria and the End Site definition in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy". You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.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

10 15

RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 27 Feb '07

27 Feb '07

> "we" really don't care about that, do we? The "real" issue > imho is to make > sure that just one prefix makes it to the core/DFZ/<your > favourite term here>. ...to make sure that no more than one prefix makes it to the core routing tables. If the organization heavily deaggregates these prefixes on an extranet, then this is fine as long as the owner of the extranet has no problem with it. The real issue is that the Internet has no owner and therefore it is not clear who should manage routing guidelines/recommendations. Since this is a grey area for the RIRs, might I suggest that all issues of routing be removed from IPv4, IPv6 and ASN policies in order to collect them together in a single "Routing Recommendations" document? This can then contain the necessary prose to clarify the differences between the Internet and other internetworks. That way we no longer have to worry about ambiguous references to "advertising" routes in the policies. > And as has been pointed out already, from the point of view > of an RIR this is > (should be?) more like a (strong) recommendation than a > formal *address policy* > aspect. If this recommendation is violated, the RIR doesn't > have appropriate > means to sanction anyway... All the more reason to collect this material in a document separate from the policies themselves. --Michael Dillon

1 0

2006-07 Last Call for Comments (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
by Filiz Yilmaz 27 Feb '07

27 Feb '07

PDP Number: 2006-07 First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size Dear Colleagues The proposal described in 2006-07 is now at its Concluding Phase. This proposal suggests the Assignment Window (AW) available to new LIRs should automatically be raised from zero (0) to /21 (2,048 IPv4 addresses) six months after they receive their first allocation. 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 (4,096 IPv4 addresses). You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-07.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 March 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
by Filiz Yilmaz 26 Feb '07

26 Feb '07

PDP Number: 2006-05 PI Assignment Size Dear Colleagues We have published a draft document for the proposal described in 2006-05. 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 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2006-05-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 14 March 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

6 8

RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 26 Feb '07

26 Feb '07

> > Just as an editorial comment: We should also remove the > "requirement" to > > advertise the prefix. I suppose that could be interpreted as "announce to at least one other AS using BGP4" which can be done without ever having the prefix visible on the public Internet. However, due to the ambiguity of the word "advertise" it would be good to get rid of it and put something less Internet-centric in its place. After all, RFC 2050 explicitly states that RIRs can allocate prefixes that will never be used on the Internet. The RIRs allocate IP resources, not Internet resources. > While there is an argument for using PI for private > assignments, right now > we can't do this in ipv6, because there is no ipv6 PI space > yet. But more > importantly, there are situations where it may be appropriate > for a private > entity to register large amounts of v6 address space, where > PI would be > less appropriate due to sub-assignment issues. In particular, there is a general misunderstanding of what "private addressing" means because most people have not read RFC 1918 carefully enough. Many people feel that addresses used on the Internet are "public" and therefore addresses that are not used on the Internet are private. This implies that all non-Internet use of IPv4 addresses should use RFC 1918 allocated ranges. However, that's not the case at all. In fact, RFC 1918 has allocated ranges for networks which will never interconnect. In other words, the word "private" refers to the networks themselves. A private network is one which never connects to another network. In the real world there are many instances of non-Internet IP networks which do interconnect, often on a large scale. Because they interconnect, they need unique addresses, i.e. RIR allocations. In the IPv4 world, people would rig up complex workarounds because of address scarcity, such as double-NAT. However, in the IPv6 world this is not necessary and RIR policy should not force people into replicating these workarounds. --Michael Dillon

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Discussion Period extended until 19 March 2007 (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 26 Feb '07

26 Feb '07

> http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html Given that IPv6 is currently not primarily used by commercial network service providers, I think that this is an excellent revision. It allows the traditional network pionering organizations, universities, to justify an IPv6 allocation and it is broad enough that any commercial service provider who wishes to use IPv6 can still get an allocation. --Michael Dillon

1 0

RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
by Sokolovsky Andrey 17 Feb '07

17 Feb '07

Hi, Our customer would like to have PI address space, but his requirement is something under /24 prefix. As many ISPs filter prefixes smaller than /24.These networks could be announced, but actually not working properly. As "RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05" with status "open for discussion" I wish to vote for this document. Regards, Andrey Sokolovsky

1 0

Transfer of ERX resources from RIPE NCC to AfriNIC
by Andrei Robachevsky 12 Feb '07

12 Feb '07

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear colleagues, On Wednesday 14 February 2007, the RIPE NCC will transfer management of several Early Registration PI address blocks and Autonomous System Numbers to AfriNIC. A list of the resources being transferred is available at: http://www.ripe.net/projects/erx/transferred.html You can find more information about AfriNIC at: http://www.afrinic.net For more information on the ERX project, see: http://www.ripe.net/projects/erx/index.html Regards, Andrei Robachevsky, Chief Technical Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Concerns on policy proposal 2005-08
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 12 Feb '07

12 Feb '07

Hi all, Preparing some text for another policy proposal, I just have the chance to review again 2005-08 and I will like to raise my concerns. To make it easier to follow, I'm looking at the comparison among existing policy and the proposal at http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-08-56s-2.html. Section 1.1. I think is wrong to take out the reference to RFC3177. This is the current recommendation and should not be ignored and keep as guidelines and is helpful for ISPs to know about it, regardless they want to follow it or not. I also don't agree with the text "This policy is considered to be an interim policy. It will be reviewed in the future, subject to greater experience in the administration of IPv6.", but I don't agree either in the one proposed by 2005-08. The complete paragraph should be simply removed (as I suggested in a previous policy proposal and a revised one being submitted), because otherwise, we should be fair and have something similar in all the policies. All them are subject to future review if there is more (or different) experience in the future, is the principle of the PDP process. Having such text can be taken as a negative thing for new people considering deploying IPv6. 2.7. If we suggest that the minimum assignment is /64 (as I understand in other parts of the proposal), there is no point in measuring the utilization in terms of /56. Either we measure the utilization in terms of /64, or we suggest that the minimum assignment is /56. My view in any case is that it should be kept as /48. 5.2.1. Same comment as for 2.7 5.4.1. I think is a mistake to change the existing text, but if we decide to go for it, I will never suggest a minimum value of /64. End-users need to have at least a prefix that allow to have several subnets. My view is still that /48 is the right size, but definitively I will accept in the *worst* case something such as /56, but never /64 should be suggested as a minimum value. I think if we go into this direction, definitively there is a need to clearly state that the end-users have the right to request extra size if needed, without any additional justification, otherwise we are creating a big barrier for deploying IPv6 and innovation, and this in turn is a barrier for making profitable services. I know this is not our "business" but we are pushing the creation of IPv6 with NAT at this way, and this is simply stupid and in that case is better that we just stop considering IPv6 at all. 5.4.2. I've already proposed to delete this section in a previous proposal and a revised one is being submitted. 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 8

2006-04 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)
by Filiz Yilmaz 08 Feb '07

08 Feb '07

PDP Number: 2006-04 Contact e-mail Address Requirements Dear Colleagues The proposal 2006-04, Contact e-mail Address Requirements has been withdrawn. The proposer and the Address Policy Working Group chair decided that not enough consensus was reached. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/archive/ Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0