June 2009 - address-policy-wg

please remove ripe-staff@telecomitalia.it from the whois records
by Jérôme Bouat 08 Jun '09

08 Jun '09

Hello, I'm trying to find the right contact for network issues. Querying the RIPE whois database with the below command: --- whois -h whois.ripe.net 87.14.213.17 --- provides the below result: --- (...) e-mail: ripe-staff(a)telecomitalia.it (...) --- However it appears that the "ripe-staff" mail account is undefined on the "telecomitalia.it" mail server. This means that my Spam complaints never reach the network admin team. Could you please update the whois database (RIPE) by removing the invalid "ripe-staff(a)telecomitalia.it" email address and also provide a replacement ? Thanks for your help. Regards.

3 3

please remove invalid abuse contacts
by Jérôme Bouat 04 Jun '09

04 Jun '09

Hello, Your Whois database is providing "jhli_jl(a)mail.jl.cn" abuse contact email for IP 222.160.20.110. However, the mailbox is full (see attached error message). Please ensure each abuse complaint is processed by each network admin or remove useless contacts. Sometimes the user account or the domain name is invalid in the provided email. Thanks for you help. Regards.

6 10

2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
by Filiz Yilmaz 04 Jun '09

04 Jun '09

PDP Number: 2009-06 Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 June 2009. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

30 37

2008-07 Discussion Period extended until 1 July 2009 (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
by Ingrid Wijte 03 Jun '09

03 Jun '09

PDP Number: 2008-07 Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2008-07 has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 2) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-07.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 1 July 2009. Regards, Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

3 2

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 02 Jun '09

02 Jun '09

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! Vladislav 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

4 3

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

As already mentioned - to the shared network - the Internet. Opposing the internal network - how big and ugly it might be! > -----Original Message----- > From: bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com > [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com] > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 5:12 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: michael.dillon(a)bt.com; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 04:24:52PM +0400, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > > > > > > Is Network X on the Internet? Is the Radianz network on the > > > Internet? > > There is a simple answer. If your address block is interacting with > at > > least one announced prefix, then you should have globally unique > > addresses, otherwise - not. > > > > announced to whom? > > --bill

2 1

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

> -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of michael.dillon(a)bt.com > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 3:30 PM > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] ... > People who make addressing policy, don't often think about ACLs > and firewall rules, but they are at least as important as > routing. If the Radianz network operates with globally unique > IP addresses, then the subscribers can be confident that any > ACLs blocking Radianz traffic from the Internet will never cause > a problem for real Internet traffic. Globally unique addresses > are required to have reliable ACLs in enterprise LANs. Administrative requirements never was an argument in the allocation/assignments. > Note that these types of traffic controls (ACLs) can be used > in other scenarios. Network X could announce their addresses > to some neighbour ASes in country A, and those ASes might > not announce the routes to international peers. They might > also implement ACLs so that no traffic can flow to > international peers. Network X would still be on the Internet > and their customers in country A would be happy that they > can browse all kinds of sites on the Internet in country A. > They could even send email internationally because it would > be relayed by the ASes with international peering agreements. > > Is Network X on the Internet? Is the Radianz network on the > Internet? There is a simple answer. If your address block is interacting with at least one announced prefix, then you should have globally unique addresses, otherwise - not. > > Addressing policy would be just as complex as today if RIPE > agreed that the scope for RIPE-NCC allocations should be > restricted to "the Internet". There is no point in making > such a change, and people who are ignorant of history need > to take the time and learn about the history of the Internet, > of IANA and of RIPE. Don't point to the history, because there was many changes in history. But POLICY of the RIPE NCC mean the scope - the Internet. Otherwise RIPE NCC should police any private IP-network in the world, even if the network doesn't want to be policed in any way, because does not leave several square meters of an office. Misha, derzi jazyk za zubami, i ne perehodi na lichnosti.

2 1

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

> -----Original Message----- > From: bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com > [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com] > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 3:16 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: andy(a)nosignal.org; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] > ... > > 2. The same network should have access to the Internet. Then it > should > > use NAT (not possibly in IPv6) or just be partially connected to the > > > you should update your reading list. > I ahve been using IVI (an IPv6 NAT) for a little over > 18 months ... works just fine. > And you should look into the IETF BEHAVE work... all about > IPv6 and NAT. > > Thank you for pointing that - then there is one more possibility for IPv6. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

> -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Davidson [mailto:andy@nosignal.org] > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 10:55 AM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] > > > On 29 May 2009, at 11:16, <poty(a)iiat.ru> <poty(a)iiat.ru> wrote: > > > Then Radianz could easily create its own rules without bothering the > > World, couldn't it? And so - use ANY IP addresses. Why should I see > > the > > internal networks (I use corrected "private" meanings) of Radianz or > > other such companys? If it is NEVER interact with my or the most of > > other networks in the Internet? > > Hi, Vladislav > > As others have tried to point out, private networks often still > connect to the Internet, so in order to prevent connectivity problems > between -- in this case, Radianz -- and another, unspecified network > on the Internet, then the addressing that Radianz need to use for > their private networks must be globally unique. Here we have several possibilities: 1. We have a tunnel between the internal networks - then Radianz network do not need to be GLOBALLY unique, it should be unique only between interconnected networks. 2. The same network should have access to the Internet. Then it should use NAT (not possibly in IPv6) or just be partially connected to the Internet. The second case - is announcing the block (or part of the block) to the Internet. The first case - internal network may have RFC 1918 or other IP addresses. > > Kind regards, > Andy Davidson Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

3 2

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 01 Jun '09

01 Jun '09

In IPv4 - NAT could help them. In IPv6 - thoroughly arranged network can do this. There is a goal in the RIPE NCC policy - not to waste the address space. If we want to live in terms of "probability" and "global charity" we could easily drop this matter at all! Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat > -----Original Message----- > From: Dmitry Kiselev [mailto:dmitry@volia.net] > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:33 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > 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) > > Hello! > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 02:15:08PM +0400, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > > > > 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! > > > > > > The TCP/IP Technology (including the resources to uniquely identify > > the > > > individual components) are - and indeed should continue to be - > > > accessible > > > to the full community. Whether using this stuff on the "Internet" > or > > > for > > > some other purpose is not a discriminating factor here. > > I fully agree with that! But companies, not involved in the > > communication with other parties, called the Internet, should create > > their own uniqueness for themselves. Why it should be achieved by > help > > of irrelevant (read - the Internet) party? > > > OK, but what they should do if one of them decide to come to Internet? > Renumber a whole mesh to avoid duplicates? > > If I remember correctly, few years ago FastWeb went through silimar > situation > with their modem's address space. Why we should push some parties to > this? > > -- > Dmitry Kiselev

1 0