May 2007 - address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
by Martin Hannigan 16 May '07

16 May '07

----- Original Message ----- From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org> To: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Cc: ppml(a)arin.net, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 19:05:44 +0100 > Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > [..] > > I simply take it as living proof that almost nobody > > really cares about seeing some (50..)70K+ routes more or > less in their boxes, these days. > > See it is a business trick: when there are say 300k routes > in the routing tables, you are forcing your competition to > also carry that amount of routes in their tables, that > means your competition will also have to buy fast new cool > routers with a lot of memory. This makes various vendors > happy, but it also takes care of emptying your > competitions pocket books. When they spend all their cash > on routers, they won't be able to invest in other things > or need to up their prices, resulting in those customers > coming to you etc etc etc. Economics 101. Has not much to > do with "The Internet" any more. > > The road to monopoly has many routes ;) The hyperbole is so thick that it can be cut with a chainsaw. -M<

1 0

Fwd: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
by heather skanks 15 May '07

15 May '07

Sorry meant to send this to the list! --Heather ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: heather skanks <heather.skanks(a)gmail.com> Date: May 9, 2007 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy) To: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> Why the assumptaion that anycast requires PI space in the first place? I can understand why it might be preferred that DNS operators have PI space, regardless of whether they anycast. They don't need a lot of space to run the service, and without a policy to allow them to get PI, they would be dependent on space from a provider. But, I think their need for PI has more to do with them being critical infrastructure, rather than the fact that they anycast. The fact that they don't need a lot of space to run the service and wouldn't otherwise qualify for PI, means that there needs to be a special policy for them. That said, the change from "If the name server set of a ccTLD or a gTLD " to: "If the name server set of an organisation running DNS" The rest of the policy goes on to make the requirement that they have 8 or more IP addresses for the services (pre anycasting) and demonstration of the need to do anycasting. The new text seems to change the policy to hinge more on the need to anycast as justification for this space, rather than the service being critical infrastructure. I don't know of anything inherent in anycast technology that would require provider independent space. --Heather On 4/25/07, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:00:52PM +0200, Jørgen Hovland wrote: > > Why does this proposal say it's for DNS only? > > The protocol is changing an existing policy document, which has "DNS only" > > in it. It's not creating new policy. > > > I guess other anycast protocols aren't important enough? > > What other anycast protocols are in widespread use today? > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. > Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > >

12 24

AW: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
by Marcus.Gerdon 14 May '07

14 May '07

I don't quite see the DFZ table problem or 'PI-problem' with ULA if route filtering is done properly. The theoretical problem arises by ISP/NSP not filtering 'private' prefixes and other trash. For example in v4 DFZ table private ASN can be seen forwarded even by large ISP. If ULA's become routed and therefore usable as replacement for PI it is caused by lash filtering. Prefixes not intended/assigned/allocated for public/global use are to be filtered. In case the uplink ISP accepts an ULA prefix into the routing table *he* has to deal with his customers reachability problems. Imho some sort of PI is required to be supported in v6, and either way to assign it is fine. But it has to be kept distinguished from any RFC1918 equivalent to allow for filtering of private addresses. greetz, Marcus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Systemtechnik Internet / Internet Engineering Versatel West-Deutschland GmbH Versatel-Gruppe Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 94994 B Geschäftsführer: Peer Knauer, Hai Cheng, Brian Cook, Marc Lützenkirchen, Christian Schemann Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon(a)versatel.de | www.versatel.de ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AS8881 / AS8638 / AS15837 | MG3031-RIPE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Shane Kerr Gesendet: Montag, 14. Mai 2007 09:51 An: bmanning(a)karoshi.com Cc: ppml(a)arin.net; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot) On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 05:30:40AM +0000, bmanning(a)karoshi.com wrote: > > > > ULA-central is NOT intended to be uses as IPv6 PI. > > but there is no way to stop it from becoming so. In the same way that RFC 1918 space is such a huge problem for the IPv4 routing table, ULA-central would be a problem in IPv6. (I think ULA-central is completely unnecessary, but I also think the "oh mi gawd IPv6 PI!!!1" argument is bogus.) -- Shane

1 0

2007-03 New Policy Proposal (IPv4 Countdown Policy)
by Filiz Yilmaz 09 May '07

09 May '07

PDP Number: 2007-03 IPv4 Countdown Policy Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This proposal proposes four general principles, which will be needed to accomplish the smooth termination of IPv4 address allocation. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-03.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 22 May 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

2 1

2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
by Filiz Yilmaz 09 May '07

09 May '07

PDP Number: 2007-02 Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This proposal suggests that there should no longer be a requirement to be a ccTLD or a gTLD to receive IPv4 and IPv6 assignments for anycasting DNS. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-02.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 21 May 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

9 14

2007-05 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 ULA-Central)
by Filiz Yilmaz 09 May '07

09 May '07

PDP Number: 2007-05 IPv6 ULA-Central Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This policy proposal is intended to allow the assignment of IPv6 blocks within the so-called 'Centrally Assigned Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses' to organisations or individuals requiring it. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 30 May 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

11 27

2006-02 New Draft Document Published (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
by Filiz Yilmaz 04 May '07

04 May '07

PDP Number: 2006-02 IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy Dear Colleagues We have published a draft document for the proposal described in 2006-02. 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 and the draft document at: http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2006-02-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 31 May 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

2 1

New E-Learning Module: Using PGP and X509 to Protect MNTNER Objects
by Rumy Kanis 03 May '07

03 May '07

Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce the launch of the latest module on the RIPE NCC E-Learning Centre: - Using PGP Keys and X509 Certificates in MNTNER objects This module explains the steps required to use a PGP Key and/or X509 Certificate to protect objects in the RIPE Database. The module provides step-by-step guidelines for: - Creating a KEY-CERT object - Adding the KEY-CERT object to an existing MNTNER object as a method of authentication - Updating an object protected by that MNTNER using the PGP key or X509 certificate The RIPE NCC E-Learning Centre is a free of charge service available to everyone, and can be found at https://e-learning.ripe.net. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at: e-learning(a)ripe.net Happy Learning, Rumy Kanis Training Services Manager

1 0

2007-01 New Policy Proposal (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by Filiz Yilmaz 02 May '07

02 May '07

PDP Number: 2007-01 Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and the RIPE NCC must be established before the End User receives Internet number resources (Autonomous System (AS) Number, Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 and IPv6 Internet Exchange Point (IXP) and anycasting assignments) directly from the RIPE NCC. It also states that the text in the policy should mention more explicitly that PI assignments can't be sub-assigned. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 17 May 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

9 17

Thorsten Toenges/EMD/Merck ist außer Haus.
by Thorsten.Toenges＠merck.de 01 May '07

01 May '07

I will be out of the office starting 27.04.2007 and will not return until 07.05.2007. Ich werde Ihre Nachricht nach meiner Rückkehr beantworten. Bei technischen Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an den User Support unter 7777 This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message and any attachment from your system. Merck does not accept liability for any omissions or errors in this message which may arise as a result of E-Mail-transmission or for damages resulting from any unauthorized changes of the content of this message and any attachment thereto. Merck does not guarantee that this message is free of viruses and does not accept liability for any damages caused by any virus transmitted therewith.

1 0