February 2011 - address-policy-wg

2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
by Emilio Madaio 26 Apr '11

26 Apr '11

Dear Colleagues, Following the feedback received at RIPE 60, the proposal 2006-05 was taken over by a new proposer and a new version was produced. The draft document for the new version of the proposal has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html and the draft document at: http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-492-draft2006-05.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 November 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

10 16

RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
by Kurt Smolderen 21 Mar '11

21 Mar '11

I strongly support the idea of assigning a smaller prefix to ISPs which are in a state of deploying IPv6 but need to use transitional mechanism for (some of) their customers. Mark has described one of the problems very clear in his email: if an ISP has only a /32 prefix and needs to use all 32 IPv4 bits in the 6rd configuration, only a /64 can be delivered to the home instead of the desired /56 or /48. Needing all 32 bits is for instance the case when an ISP offers internet connectivity to some of its customers via a partnership with another ISP. However, I want to point to an additional problem which appears when an ISP wants to deploy native IPv6 but needs to roll out 6rd (or any other transitional technique) as well. For native IPv6, the ISP will create an IPv6 addressing plan. This will normally include separate prefixes for the ISP's own servers, the ISP's backbone, the ISP's customers etc. For the 6rd domain, the full /32 range is however needed. So at this stage, the ISP has two options: 1) Implement 6rd only 2) Implement native IPv6 only and exclude some customers from being able to use IPv6 (those which would normally be connected through 6rd) I strongly believe we all agree 6rd is only a temporary solution. So I can't imagine we would prefer skipping native IPv6 deployments in favor of IPv6 transitional mechanisms. I also believe we all agree we should enable IPv6 for as much customers as we can, which makes me conclude the second 'option' is not really an option at all... My primary concern is that any ISP - regardless of how small or big it is - can independently of other organizations/ ISPs move forward with IPv6 deployment. RIPE can support this by adapting a policy which - albeit for a limited time span - allows the assignment of a contiguous IPv6 prefix which size does not only depend on the amount of customers the ISP has, but also incorporates the needed technologies to 'IPv6-enable' as much customers as possible. Regards, -Kurt

7 17

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
by Igor Ybema 03 Mar '11

03 Mar '11

Hi, I'm new to the list but would like to comment on this subject. I'm also trying to receive IPv6 PI for a webhosting customer of us which seems to be a big problem. I do not understand why everyone claims that 'the routing table growth' is the reason not to allow too much IPv6 PI. Those currently having IPv4 PI would of course require IPv6 PI because they still want to be indepentent. If they need to be a LIR to get IPv6 PA the problem is not solved for the routing-table issue. A prefix is still entered into the same global routing-table. I would suggest changing the IPv6 PI policy to make it more clear for hosting/isp company's to get IPv6 PI by enforcing that the equipment on which the IPv6 addresses are installed in rooms accessible by that company. Multi-homing is a good reason also. I'm not sure if we should delete that reason. This makes the company more aware that they are really independend. This suggestion solves two things: - large broadband ISP's with CPE in office-building, homes etc do not fit into this policy. The equipment is behind other company's doors. This enforces these company's to assign block to their customers from PA space as it was meant to be. - small ISP's/hosting company's with a few racks installed at one ore more DC's (which we talk about in this postings) do fit into this policy and will be independend to their internet suppliers. Of course, they should request another PI (or get assigned-PA from a LIR) for their customers which buy dedicated racks from them and receiving their own key to the lock. This is exactly what we would like to see it. What do other people on the list think about this? regards, Igor Ybema

8 11

New IPv4 block allocated to RIPE NCC
by Andrea Cima 01 Mar '11

01 Mar '11

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [Apologies for duplicate mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has received the IPv4 address range 185/8 from the IANA. This is the final allocation of IPv4 address space that the RIPE NCC will receive from the IANA as stated in ripe-436, "Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space". The minimum allocation size for this /8 has been set at /22. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP address space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our website at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-ncc-managed-address-space.html Additionally, please note that three "pilot" prefixes will be announced from this /8. The prefixes are: 185.0.0.0/16 185.1.0.0/21 185.1.24.0/24 They all originate in AS12654. The pingable addresses will be: 185.0.0.1 185.1.0.1 185.1.24.1 More information on this activity is available in the document "De-Bogonising New Address Blocks", which can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-351.html Kind regards, Andrea Cima Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAk1Pu9kACgkQXOgsmPkFrjM9FgCgsaT8cFxK0YKTFUFzj41L0PQT N1AAoIgmL1zUY8JjkCSa05xt0t8oppgP =woX5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 8

RE: [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
by Wyatt Mattias Gyllenvarg 01 Mar '11

01 Mar '11

Hi We would like to weigh in here. We feel that it should be RIPEs policy to allocate ONE /32 to any LIR who requests it for 6rd. 6rd is the only way for us to reach all our residential customers. Especially those in Municipal Networks that are very slow to invest in their networks and often do not have the competence and time to impelment IPv6. Also, Cisco has not yet implemented even a small part of the protective mechanisms we rely on in IPv4 to secure our residential networks. Many of these features are required to meet the demands contracted with the customers. We cannot use native IPv6 until Cisco implements these features and we have tested and rolled them out on hundreds of switches. 6rd bypasses all these issues. IF we can get a /32 for that purpuse. -- Med Vänliga Hälsningar - Best regards Mattias Gyllenvarg Network Operations Center Bredband2 ---------------------- end of line ---------------------------

6 8

REMINDER; WAS Re: 2008-08 New Version and Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders)
by Emilio Madaio 25 Feb '11

25 Feb '11

[Apologies for duplicates. Courtesy copy sent to Routing Working Group and RIPE NCC Services Working Group. Please direct feedback to the Address Policy Working Group mailing list.] Dear Colleagues, The new version of RIPE Policy Proposal 2008-08, "Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders", was published on 9 February 2011. The time period for community review ends on 23 February 2011. Some feedback was sent to the Address Policy Working Group mailing list. However, to maintain the discussion, we strongly recommend that you share your ideas and comments and clearly let the community know if you: - Support the implementation of the proposal - Support the general principle of the proposal but would prefer another wording - Support the general principle with some details changed but agree to postpone this discussion until another stage of the policy proposal review. (This is an initial proposal that covers only PA resources. If the community supports extending certification to all resources, then another version of the proposal will be necessary.) - Do not support the proposal (please explain your motivations) You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08/draft Please send an email with your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net by 23 February 2011. Best regards, Emilio Madaio

2 2

2008-08 New Version and Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders)
by Emilio Madaio 24 Feb '11

24 Feb '11

Dear Colleagues, The new version (3.0) of the proposal 2008-08 has been published. The draft document for the proposal and the impact analysis have also been published. The proposal will now undergo a two weeks Review Phase as explained in the previous message available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2011/msg00022… You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08/draft We strongly encourage you to read the draft document text and send comments, ideas, feedback to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 23 February 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

11 17

Query for the RIPE NCC: Size of PIv4 assignments used for access networks
by Martin Millnert 22 Feb '11

22 Feb '11

Hi, I would like to request from the RIPE NCC an answer to the following query: What is the size, in number of addresses, of all PIv4 assignments that are (mostly) used for access networks? Access networks in this context means traditional ISP:s who let humans access the internet. I believe the RIPE NCC keeps documentation over what justifies an assignment, so I imagine it will be possible to come up with some kind of answer to this question even if it is outright impossible to answer based on data in the database. If it is indeed possible to answer the above question with some form of accuracy (+/- 50% or so: order of magnitude most important to get right), I would like to run the question also for PAv4. This is required data to reach some form of informed policy decision/consensus on the PIv4 / PIv6 discrepancy issue which has resurfaced. Regards, Martin

1 0

2010-05 Discussion Period extended until 22 March 2011 (Global Policy for IPv4 Allocation by the IANA Post Exhaustion)
by Emilio Madaio 22 Feb '11

22 Feb '11

Dear Colleagues, The Discussion Period for the global policy proposal 2010-05 has been extended until 22 March 2011. The extension was decided due to the lack of feedback in the Initial Discussion Period. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-05 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
by Mathieu Paonessa 17 Feb '11

17 Feb '11

Hi All, I've been following the previous thread concerning IPv6 PI assignment but I'm running into a special case and need your input. As a LIR, I did send an IPv6 PI request for one of our customers few days ago and the hostmaster did point me to this previous thread saying that we are in the same case and that he may reject this request. The company requesting the IPv6 PI is a hosting company providing software as a service solution for its customers. All the infrastructure (servers, routers...) is owned by them. For security reasons, they chose to isolate each of their customers on a separate VLAN. Their customer don't have administrative access to the servers and just uses the software hosted on them for their CRM, extranet or other corporate applications. Would you consider this to be the exact same case as an ISP assigning an IP to a customer's CPE? I really don't see the point for such a company to become a LIR as they will only use those IPs for them. They also don't need more than a /48 as they are currently having about 50 customers. Regards, Mathieu Paonessa

8 15