May 2009 - address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 29 May '09

29 May '09

See in-line-2 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jeroen@unfix.org] > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:57 PM ... > You are going to require that people route everything onto the > Internet? > Not going to happen. There are a lot of assigned blocks which you will > never ever see on the Internet. And why would they be, it is their > network, thus theirs to route or not, to firewall or not. > 1. "assigned" blocks is not the things, that involves the routing. If you mean allocations - say that. 2. If it is THEIR networks, why the need GLOBALLY unique addresses? Then they could use ANY addresses they like not asking me, or you, or RIPE! > > And private networks > > should invent their own rules, personally I will not object that as > > far as it is not affect my access to public part of the Internet! > > You mean a separate registry so that when people are "OH I WANT > INTERNETZ" that they simply announce their prefix, which clashes with > real prefixes on the Internet !? That will be a lot of fun. I think you can't understand what is difference between private usage and announcing the block in the Internet. If you want to use some IP addresses privately, you can do it without any RIR. And only in the case you want to announce some block to the public network, you have to abide the Internet rules and get unique numbers! > The sole reason for having registries in the first place is to make > sure these little numbers are globally unique and that they thus don't > clash. > > Ever tried to merge the network of a couple of banks after they where > acquired by each other and all where using 192.168.0.0/16 in their > internal "totally private" networks? > > Uniqueness is what is needed there for that to work. > It's the problem of the merging banks or any other companies, not the whole World. Why RIPE should do the work for them? Or take in the consideration the internal problems of SOME cases into the whole region policy? Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

2 1

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 29 May '09

29 May '09

See in-line -----Original Message----- From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jeroen@unfix.org] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:57 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: david.freedman(a)uk.clara.net; nick(a)inex.ie; frederic(a)placenet.org; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > The clash is about: > > * RIR-space > + guaranteed globally unique > + *CAN* be routed on the internet > - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it > > My point of view: RIR-s space is for routing on the Internet. Not for > private use! So it MUST be routed on the Internet. Bad point of view. You are going to require that people route everything onto the Internet? Not going to happen. There are a lot of assigned blocks which you will never ever see on the Internet. And why would they be, it is their network, thus theirs to route or not, to firewall or not. 1. "assigned" blocks is not the things, that involves the routing. If you mean allocations - say that. 2. If it is THEIR networks, why the need GLOBALLY unique addresses? Then they could use ANY addresses they like not asking me, or you, or RIPE! > And private networks > should invent their own rules, personally I will not object that as > far as it is not affect my access to public part of the Internet! You mean a separate registry so that when people are "OH I WANT INTERNETZ" that they simply announce their prefix, which clashes with real prefixes on the Internet !? That will be a lot of fun. I think you can't understand what is difference between private usage and announcing the block in the Internet. If you want to use some IP addresses privately, you can do it without any RIR. And only in the case you want to announce some block to the public network, you have to abide the Internet rules and get unique numbers! The sole reason for having registries in the first place is to make sure these little numbers are globally unique and that they thus don't clash. Ever tried to merge the network of a couple of banks after they where acquired by each other and all where using 192.168.0.0/16 in their internal "totally private" networks? Uniqueness is what is needed there for that to work. It's the problem of the merging banks or any other companies, not the whole World. Why RIPE should do the work for them? Or take in the consideration the internal problems of SOME cases into the whole region policy? Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

2 1

RE: RIPE policies and routing, was Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
by poty＠iiat.ru 29 May '09

29 May '09

Shane, I'm fully agree with you! It's a pity I can't write this as clear as you! The RIPE was created for distributing resources for routing. Someone can't say RIPE is not routing policy because of that. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Shane Kerr Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:46 PM To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: RIPE policies and routing, was Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) All, I am neutral on this proposal, but I do have some thoughts about an assertion that has been made several times in the discussion: On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 01:09 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 26/05/2009 15:30, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > > PDP Number: 2009-06 > > Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy > > I support this proposal for the usual arguments: > > - RIPE are not the routing police > - important to maintain separation of address assignment policy from > routing policy I think the idea that RIPE is not the routing police was mostly created to prevent people from calling in the RIPE NCC when someone would not peer with them or otherwise accept their advertisements. I do not think that this idea is meant to say that RIPE policies cannot include any routing requirements. For example, in the ASN policy (currently RIPE 463) we see: Current guidelines require a network to be multi-homed for an AS Number to be assigned. Requests must show the routing policy of the Autonomous System. As far as "policing" goes, RIPE is also not the DNS police, but we seem to be quite happy to restrict reverse delegations based on a huge set of checks (e-mail checks? really??): http://www.ripe.net/rs/reverse/delcheck/delcheck_descr.html If we look at the global IPv6 allocation and assignment policy shared by all RIRs (currently RIPE 466 in the RIPE region), they have the same principles, one of which is "aggregation". The text reads (in part): Wherever possible, address space should be distributed in a hierarchical manner, according to the topology of network infrastructure. This is necessary to permit the aggregation of routing information by ISPs and to limit the expansion of Internet routing tables. This goal is particularly important in IPv6 addressing, where the size of the total address pool creates significant implications for both internal and external routing. IPv6 address policies should seek to avoid fragmentation of address ranges. Note the last sentence there especially. I observe that RIPE policies can and do dictate routing requirements. Further, routing and address allocation are linked. Changing one will affect the other. Otherwise we wouldn't bother trying to make allocations that can be easily aggregated. I am *not* saying that it is a good idea to put routing requirements into policies. But we should not reject such requirements simply because "RIPE are not the routing police". Cheers, -- Shane

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
by poty＠iiat.ru 29 May '09

29 May '09

Maybe you are right, but it doesn't prove that is IS good in IPv6 world too. I can't understand, why I should think about such private matters (and indirectly fund this) and count it as arguments in the RIPE's policy development? If the allocation will never be announced to the public network called the Internet, then it's not the scope of our thinking! From: David Freedman [mailto:david.freedman@uk.clara.net] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:18 PM To: Potapov Vladislav; nick(a)inex.ie; frederic(a)placenet.org Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) Vladislav, this is a function that the RIPE NCC have always provided, if this relationship is truely private then I would suggest consulting RFC1918 or RFC4193. ------------------------------------------------ David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Limited http://www.clara.net -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net on behalf of poty(a)iiat.ru Sent: Fri 5/29/2009 09:12 To: nick(a)inex.ie; frederic(a)placenet.org Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) Nick, just because there is the word "private". Why should RIPE or some other organization (including mine) provide the registration and supporting service (for example - uniqueness) for PRIVATE networks? If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies - it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means for achieving that! Potapov Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:18 AM To: Frederic Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) On 27/05/2009 17:41, Frederic wrote: > but we suggest that may be a good rule to write somewhere that it's ask > to LIR to garant routing. > > so we do not support this 2009-06. because this confirm to let choice > for operator so it let choice to not garant routing. from my other mail to this mailing list: "- just because an organisation hasn't announced an ipv6 prefix on the Internet-with-a-capital-I[*], that doesn't mean they aren't using the address space for other entirely valid purposes." Frederic, can you please explain why a LIR which: 1. requires an ipv6 allocation for use on a private network 2. meets all the other requirements of the IPv6 address allocation policy 3. requires unique addresses (e.g. interconnecting with other private ipv6 networks) ... shouldn't be granted a RIPE IPv6 allocation? Or are you trying to say that there is only a single valid IPv6 network in the world? Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick(a)inex.ie [*] whatever the "Internet-with-a-capital-I" means

2 1

2007-01 Phase 2 Implementation: Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC
by Andrea Cima 28 May '09

28 May '09

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that the RIPE NCC has implemented the second phase of "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC". In this phase the RIPE NCC will contact all LIRs to request information regarding existing direct resources requested through that LIR. This will be done via the LIR Portal. All LIR Portal users will receive a notification email on 28 May 2009 detailing the process. Details of the implementation are available at: http://www.ripe.net/rs/pi-existing-assignments.html Timelines: Before September 2009: LIRs need to indicate which resources should stay with that LIR. This will affect the charging scheme for 2010. Before 31 December 2009: LIRs must upload contracts and registration papers for all resources still associated with that LIR. More information on the requirements of the contractual agreement can be found here: http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-requirements.html Kind regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC

2 1

2009-02 Moved to Review Phase (Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC)
by Ingrid Wijte 26 May '09

26 May '09

PDP Number: 2009-02 Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues The draft document for the proposal described in 2009-02 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. This proposal sets out how the RIPE NCC can allocate/assign resources to itself. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-02.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2009-02-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 June 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2009-05 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
by Ingrid Wijte 26 May '09

26 May '09

PDP Number: 2009-05 Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs Dear Colleagues The proposal 2009-05, "Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs" has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-05.html The proposer, together with the Working Group Chairs, decided to withdraw this proposal due to insufficient support for it as it is written. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Historical questions about ip address policy
by Hank Nussbacher 24 May '09

24 May '09

At 06:25 PM 21-05-09 -0400, Milton L Mueller wrote: >2. When (i.e., what year) did RIPE-NCC first charge fees for services or >addresses? http://ftp.eenet.ee/doc/ripe/ripe-087.pdf From page 4: "Funding for the first year of operation of the NCC has been provided by EARN, the full national members of RARE, Israel and EUnet. These organisations have agreed to guarantee funding of NCC operation during the remaining three quarters of 1993." -Hank

1 0

Historical questions about ip address policy
by Milton L Mueller 22 May '09

22 May '09

If anyone knows the answer to these questions they will help in a policy study I am doing 1. When (i.e., what year) did RIPE-NCC first require RSAs or contracts as a condition of registering an address allocation or assignment? 2. When (i.e., what year) did RIPE-NCC first charge fees for services or addresses? 3. When (i.e., what year) did RIRs generally or RIPE-NCC specifically begin to use the 80% HD Ratio as a criterion for eligibility to receive more addresses? If this is considered too off-topic for this list please answer privately. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org

4 3

New RIPE Document: ripe-470
by Filiz Yilmaz 20 May '09

20 May '09

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE Document, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", has been updated. You can find the new document, ripe-470, at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-470.html This document obsoletes ripe-428. The update was limited to textual improvements to the document. There are no changes to the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). The document also contains an updated policy proposal template and a new PDP timeline graphic. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

1 0