June 2007 - address-policy-wg

PI for Not-DNS Anycast.
by Andy Davidson 11 Aug '07

11 Aug '07

Hi, Can I get the community's thoughts on this, please .. I think we have a well defined policy on what to do when someone needs some PI in order to run an Anycasted DNS service. We set out a family of requirements based on geographic diversity, for instance, that clearly states what should be in place when a request for PI for DNS use is made. What if a company wants to try to deploy an anycasted production service for something which is not DNS ? It could be a proprietary protocol, or something standard like http. Is the community view that they should just deaggregate some of their PA - which I don't like the sound of - or apply for PI in the normal way, and pretend anycast isn't necessarily involved ? Many thanks Andy

13 25

2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
by Filiz Yilmaz 04 Jul '07

04 Jul '07

PDP Number: 2006-02 IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy Dear Colleagues The proposal described in 2006-02 is now at its Concluding Phase. 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://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 2 July 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

11 23

How to get a IPv6 /32 the cheap way: go to AFRINIC
by Jeroen Massar 01 Jul '07

01 Jul '07

[*full rant mode*] My eye just fell on a very strange new allocation, apparently made under some new rules in the AFRINIC region which seem to be very wasteful and very out of sync with the rest of the world who are at least thinking a bit about address conservation instead of just blowing address space like there is no tomorrow: http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6200407-000.htm#5 details: 8<-------------- 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization must: a) be an LIR; b) not be an end site; c) show a detailed plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations in the AfriNIC region. d) show a reasonable plan for making /48 IPv6 assignments to end sites in the AfriNIC region within twelve months. The LIR should also plan to announce the allocation as a single aggregated block in the inter-domain routing system within twelve months. 5.1.2. Initial allocation size Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive a minimum allocation of /32. ---------------------------------------------->8 Wow, so you make a new 'company' in 911 land and say "I am going to allocate a single /48" and you get a FULL /32 even when you will never ever ever use it or even are going to think about using it? The first "organization" which is using this to waste space seems to be: inet6num: 2001:42d0::/32 netname: AfriNIC-IPv6-1 descr: AfriNIC descr: RIR country: MU Gee, the RIR itself. How many people are using the AFRINIC network? 10-50? Are they really *ever* going to need more than a /48? Are they ever going to have a need for 65536 of those /48's? Really this is just a waste of address space. Yes there is "enough", but being sooo obviously wasteful just to be able to have a nice slot in the routing tables is a bit over done. I hope that the other regions take this in mind too when (re)considering their address policies. Giving out /48's or even a /40 to an organization that is in-effect an end-site I can understand, especially when they can justify the need for that amount of address space. But giving /32's to every single endsite that simply asks for it is very very very far fetched. They will not even ever fill up a /40 of address space even if they would have two sites (read: offices) in every country in Africa, let alone 65536 sites. Such a waste. Funnily later in the above document they point to HD ratios. What point is that when the waste is already happened? RIR's should be giving out address space based on "need" and that need must justified, giving out /32's as "those fit in the routing slots" is a really really bad idea. In short: if you want a nice /32 without issues: setup a small shop in Africa and presto! Greets, Jeroen

16 27

ICANN Board Resolution on the Deployment of IPv6
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 30 Jun '07

30 Jun '07

I think this resolution that has been taken unanimously by the board today here in San Juan deservers this email at least: http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=3052 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

2007-01 Awaiting Documentation
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Jun '07

28 Jun '07

Dear Colleagues, As you may remember, during the Address Policy Working Group session at RIPE 54, the community asked us to prepare a draft contract between End Users and the RIPE NCC in order to facilitate discussion about proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC". The RIPE NCC Executive Board will meet at the beginning of September to discuss this draft End User contract. Only after this meeting can a draft contract be published. Until then, the proposer, Nick Hilliard, and the Address Policy Working Group Chairs decided to keep the current status of proposal 2007-01 as "Discussion Phase - Awaiting for Documentation." Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 27 Jun '07

27 Jun '07

Hi all, I've published a document trying to analyze the IPv4 exhaustion problem and what is ahead of us, considering among others, changes in policies. http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=3004 I guess this could be useful in order to understand possible implications of modifying existing policies, or setting up new ones, or even just to create some debate about those changes. The document was completed last April, but didn't had the time to tidy up until a few days ago. 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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
by Aleksi Suhonen 27 Jun '07

27 Jun '07

Hello, > And which prefix size does the organization get then? There are enough > end-site organizations that can easily justify a /42 worth of address > space, 64 /48's isn't that much if you give every separate building > where you have an office a /48 and those offices can definitely be > considered sites. Easy is great, but there should be a possibility for > sites to request a bit more. Hmm ... /48 shouldn't be the lower bound for organization internal site subnetting. It should be /64. If every separate building needs several subnets and room to expand, then they should be given 256 /64s (aka /56). Or if it can be shown that some building really needs more, then perhaps a bigger block can be justified. It would still be hard to convince me that an organization would need sixtyfivethousand subnets in every building. Now, if the organization has more than 256 buildings, THEN it might be reasonable to give the organization a bigger block than /48. (Of course, there might be organizations that have very special needs that have nothing to do with office buildings, and I'm not commenting on those at all here.) I may be wrong, -- Aleksi Suhonen / Axu TM Oy Internetworking Consulting Cellular: +358 45 670 2048 World Wide Web: www.axu.tm

3 3

Re : [ppml] on PPML? - was Re: How to get ...
by Iwu Mbatelege 22 Jun '07

22 Jun '07

Please stop this non sense debate here: Have you also come across the following address waist? I haven't seen you guys making any noise about them! 014/8 Jun 91 IANA - Public Data Network ---- (a whole /8 for an organisation of less than 20 people?) inet6num: 2001:07F8::/29 inet6num: 2001:07FD::/32 netname: K-rootserver-net-20030829 descr: This assignment given to k-root.server.net descr: maintained by the RIPE NCC --- (just for the Kroot server Infratsructure ????? is this an LIR) inet6num2001:0DC0::/32 netnameAPNIC-AP-V6-20030124 descrAPNIC Pty Ltd - Brisbane Offices + Servers descrLevel 1, 33 Park Rd descrPO Box 2131, Milton descrBrisbane, QLD. countryAU --- (just for APNIC??? an LIR?) So is your problem with AfriNIC or you are going to request IANA , RIPE NCC, APNIC too to send you their justifications? note that most of the v6 assignments/allocations above were made in 2003 where none of these RIR had IPv6 PI policy in place. IM. ----- Message d'origine ---- De : Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org> À : Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis(a)neustar.biz> Cc : ARIN Address Policy <ppml(a)arin.net> Envoyé le : Vendredi, 22 Juin 2007, 20h23mn 08s Objet : Re: [ppml] on PPML? - was Re: How to get ... Edward Lewis wrote: > At 16:44 +0100 6/22/07, Jeroen Massar wrote: > >> Global address consumption affects everybody globally. As such, if >> AfriNIC >> decides to waste address space, that affects all RIR's globally. As >> such it >> also affects ARIN, as such it affects you. > > I guess I was too subtle in making my point. Which point? Sorry, but not everybody is into prose, some people are engineers and simply want straight words. > If you are criticizing the activities of Afrinic, take it up discreetly > with Afrinic. The "Court of Public Opinion" is not a place for a fair > "fight." It is a problem with AfriNIC that has an effect globally. It is not a fight, it is public questioning. If you want to ignore it, then ignore it. > I don't like the precedent of accusing an RIR of a misdoing and asking > them to publicly defend themselves. The RIR's operate in a delicate > balance of both openness in policy development and resource registration > and confidentiality in handling and judging the worthiness of requests. That openness is not there when a RIR makes up their own rules without asking their membership. Or did I miss the superinternal memo that is not supposed to be public in the first place? > Working in a environment of openness, confidentiality, and neutrality is > difficult. You cannot defend yourself to the fullest because of the > limits of what can be, what can not be, and what might otherwise be > implied. > > Plus this is the ARIN mailing list. Stop thinking in your little American box. Or is the war in Iraq something that does not happen in the US and thus not relevant? To pull something in that also shows that local decisions have global effects. >> Then please try to explain me why I saw this recently: >> 2001:42c8::/32 Canada TGB-V6-AFRICA > > I believe that question is wholly inappropriate for this list. > Especially for this list. (In the pulic meetings, our chair doesn't > tolerate personal "accusations" either, something I was heartened to > witness in April.) If you try to say "Shut up" to me then either: - simply say on this list - simply say so by sending a private message And I am very sure that ARIN staff and other people are also very able to provide me with a similar message when needed very quickly. Please bring arguments along, they tend to help. I brought that up as a note to show you *WHY* it was appropriate to bring these matters up on the PPML mailinglist as policies and decisions happening in other regions *DO* affect ARIN. Let me repeat again, that I have NOTHING against that 2001:42c8::/32 assignment which is really a good thing and very well justified. It only demonstrates that Address Policy is a global thing, not something local. Organizations are global and the Internet is global. Policies and laws etc are not but they do affect us globally. And in case you don't like me mailing, then simply block all mail from jeroen(a)unfix.org, which is always nicely PGP signed, thus should be very easy to block in your MUA or even MTA. Greets, Jeroen _______________________________________________ This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML(a)arin.net). Manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml _____________________________________________________________________________ Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail

4 3

2007-04 New Draft Document Published (IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs)
by Filiz Yilmaz 21 Jun '07

21 Jun '07

PDP Number: 2007-04 IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs Dear Colleagues We have published a draft document for the proposal described in 2007-04. This proposal is to have a global policy for the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) to receive blocks of Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-04.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2007-04-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 12 July 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

4 4

Impact Analysis
by Filiz Yilmaz 20 Jun '07

20 Jun '07

Dear Colleagues, During the Address Policy Working Group session at the RIPE 53 Meeting in 2006, the community supported the idea of having an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC for each policy that has been proposed. The community wanted to know the expected impact that a policy may have if it is eventually accepted. The RIPE NCC will therefore conduct an impact analysis for every policy proposal that moves to the Review Phase of the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP) from now on. The impact analysis provides projections in the two areas most discussed by the community: A. Impact of the policy on the registry and addressing system - Information will be provided about the possible impact of the proposal on address/Internet number resource consumption and fragmentation/aggregation. B. Impact of the policy on RIPE NCC operations/services The first impact analysis has been created for the proposal 2007-04, IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs. You can view this analysis under 'Additional Information' in this proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-04.html Kind regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

2 1