January 2010 - address-policy-wg

IPv6 allocations for 6RD
by Jan Boogman 11 Mar '10

11 Mar '10

Hi, we are planning to offer IPv6 connectivity to our xDSL and FTTH customer base via IPv6-6RD. (see <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-townsley-ipv6-6rd-01> or for a working implementation Free's presentation at RIPE-58: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/content/presentations/ipv6-free.p…>). We asked RIPE NCC for a larger than /32 allocation (because of the way how 6RD encapsulates the customers IPv4 address in his IPv6 address and also because we want to give the customer a small subnet). The IPRA now isn't sure how to proceed and after consultation with the Policy Development Manager asked me to pose the question to the community at large. What do you think, should RIPE NCC allocate larger than /32 blocks to LIRs for cases like this and not only based on the number of end-customers? Cheers Jan Swisscom IP-Plus - AS3303

13 34

New Draft Document: Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies
by Filiz Yilmaz 16 Feb '10

16 Feb '10

Dear Colleagues, At the RIPE 59 Meeting in Lisbon last October, the RIPE NCC announced that it would undertake a project to improve the language of various RIPE policy documents, without changing their substance or meaning. This project is aimed at improving the clarity and readability of RIPE Documents. For more information, see: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/updated-documents/ A draft of the first RIPE Document to be revised is now available: "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies and Procedures". We have published the draft document in two layouts. The first layout contains only the proposed text, in full, and is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/updated-documents/ASN-v1.html The second layout contains both the current text and the proposed text side by side, and is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/updated-documents/ASN-v2.html At the top of both draft documents there is a summary of the proposed changes. There are two changes we would like to highlight because they constitute a slightly larger change. Paragraph 4.0 - Returning AS Numbers Excerpt from current version: "If an organisation has an AS Number that is no longer in use, it can be returned to the public pool of AS Numbers..." Excerpt from proposed draft: "If an organisation no longer uses the AS Number, it must be returned to the public pool of AS Numbers." The main difference is that the current version says the AS Number "can" be returned, while the draft version says the AS Number "must" be returned. The change was made to better reflect the intention of the policy and to be consistent. In other policy documents, for other Internet resources, the wording of the policy states "must". The other larger change is the addition of the following paragraph: Paragraph 5.0 - Validity of an Assignment This paragraph is copied from the IPv4 policy document ("IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region"). As this seems to be a shared policy principle, applicable to all Internet resources, we feel it is appropriate to add this text to the AS policy document, both for clarity and consistency. Other smaller changes are listed at the top of document. Please review the text and send your feedback to the Address Policy Working Group mailing list. The period for review is four weeks and lasts until 26 February 2010. After the review period, the Address Policy WG chairs will conclude whether or not there is consensus on the draft document. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

5 5

32-bit AS Number status?
by Shane Kerr 01 Feb '10

01 Feb '10

All, I noticed that the proposed updated AS Number policy was sent to the address-policy-wg recently. There is a timeline for 32-bit AS Number in both the old and new versions, which says: "From 1 January 2010 the RIPE NCC will cease to make any distinction between 16-bit AS Numbers and 32-bit only AS Numbers, and will operate AS Number assignments from an undifferentiated 32-bit AS Number allocation pool." I'm not sure exactly what this means, but I think it is supposed to mean that people get 32-bit AS Numbers now. Did this happen? If it didn't, why not? Do we need to change "2010" to "2011"? Is it ever going to happen? If it did, was there any effect? I mean both from humans (angry LIRs, peasants marching on the castle with torches, riots in the streets), or on the Intertubes (ugly routing artifacts, mass reboots of boxes with old firmware, monitoring systems gone wild)? Just wondering. :) -- Shane

5 5

2009-03 "Run-out fairly" implemented
by Xavier Le Bris 21 Jan '10

21 Jan '10

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails.] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that the policy described in proposal 2009-03,"Run Out Fairly", has been implemented. Requests for IPv4 address space received on or after Friday, 22 January will be evaluated by the RIPE NCC Registration Services Department under the new policy. Full text of the policy proposal can be found at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03.html The following RIPE documents have been updated to reflect this policy implementation: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-488.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-489.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-490.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-491.html Regards, Xavier Le Bris Registration Services

1 0

IPv6 PI for HOSTING
by Max Tulyev 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

Hi All, I just hear I can't use IPv6 PI network for hosting service. And I want to talk about it ;) The main problem in IPv6 implementation in the real life is a lack of resources. A lot of ISPs (including our company) providing broadband and corporate access to IPv6 Internet. And now it is running globally, pings are pinging, traces are tracing... and so what? The main question users ask us "and so, what we can do with that new IPv6 Internet?". The answer is NOTHING! There is almost NO RESOURCES in IPv6 net! No sites, no pages, no freemails - NOTHING! This makes IPv6 Internet absolutely USELESS for users. Really, unlike us, they do not become happy running bgpd and traceroute6. They need web resources. So why do you think all they change their common network to absolutely useless thing for them after IPv4 will run out? Let's go forward. Yes, a few hosters I know are big companies, LIRs, trade their traffic and so on. But majority are small companines have from one server to one-two racks of hosting servers. They will never become a LIR only for [useless now] IPv6 address space. But they host a huge piece of resources need by a lot of regular users. Yes, IPv6 can provide hosting users a lot of good things, such as unique IP for every site, FTP/SSL/SMB/torrent/personal IP-based ACLs/... without extra costs and so on - this sure will stimulate them to move to IPv6. Yes, some of hosters are ready to obtain IPv6 network and play with it right now. And NO, most of them don't want to use upstream's networks, as there is almost impossible to change it after hundred of thousands of domains are linked with this network. So I think we should ASAP change IPv6 PI policy to let hosting be the issue for IPv6 PI assignment. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

9 20