November 2013 - address-policy-wg

Announcing address resources
by Nick Hilliard 08 Jan '14

08 Jan '14

Apropos of, oh I don't know, the weather or the phase of the moon or something, could someone point me to the RIPE policy which says that if you're assigned address resources from the RIPE NCC, that they cannot be announced from outside the RIPE NCC service region? [This is a genuine request, btw. I've been flicking down through RIPE policies for an hour or two today and can't find the reference.] Nick

10 20

2013-05 Last Call for Comments (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
by mschmidt 19 Dec '13

19 Dec '13

Dear colleagues, The proposal described in 2013-05, No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers, is now in its Concluding Phase. The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs have declared that consensus for the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 28 November and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the co-Chairs of all RIPE Working Groups for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05 [1] Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 28 November 2013. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC Links: ------ [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-04

5 6

ripe-589 question
by Raimundas Tuminauskas 29 Nov '13

29 Nov '13

Dear all, We've ran into internal conflict assigning IPv6 address space. Anyone caring to provide independent view on this would be much appreciated. Problem: LITNET (org: ORG-LA11-RIPE) has been comprised of two ASNs 2847 and 5479. Current IPv6 allocation is /29 (inet6num: 2001:778::/29). Current policy is to assign /32 per AS. Proposed new policy is to assign /30 per AS. Arguments for new policy: - RIPE-589 3.4 (Aggregation) and 3.8 (Conflict of goals) Arguments for current policy: - Two routes will be announced anyway. Different AS_PATH and routing policies, no aggregation. - /32 is 1200+ /64s per head of population of the country. Should be enough for any local AS for foreseeable future. Revise assignment planning if not. - The same address space allocation will be preserved for future AS if any current end-user (university) would require independent routing policies. - We will not get any wider allocation. Next address range (if it will happen) will be far off from 2001:778 I'm not in favor of wasting a long-term resource like IPv6 and rather deviate from the policy, but maybe I'm missing a point here somewhere ? TIA sincerely, Raimundas Tuminauskas KTU ITD / LITNET NOC Studentu 48a, Kaunas 51367, Lithuania phone: +370 37300033 fax: +370 37300643 email: raimis(a)litnet.lt

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
by Gert Doering 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

Dear Address Policy WG, On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:36:24PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > A proposed change to RIPE Documents ripe-589, "IPv6 Address > Allocation and Assignment Policy", ripe-451, "IPv6 Address > Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points" and ripe-233, > "IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers In The RIPE Region" > is now available for discussion. [..] > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 25 October 2013. The discussion phase for this proposal is now over, but after the feedback received at the RIPE meeting in Athens (and here on the list, even if in the wrong thread :) ) the chairs have deviced to take a step back, and re-state the fundamental "do we want to go there?" question (and extend the discussion phase by +4 weeks). The proposal aims to unify IPv6 PA and IPv6 PI space into one kind of address space, "IPv6 addresses". This is the goal. The idea to go there came from various people in the community, mostly for one reason - having two differently "coloured" addresses that do the same thing, routingwise, but follow different policies and have different strings attached, creates quite some confusion for the folks out there that can no longer be nicely separated into "ISPs" (->become RIPE members, use PA) and "end-users" (->use PI, if BGP-based multihoming and/or upstream independence is required). Most notably, "garage style hosting providers" seem to have issues with the requirement of the IPv6 PI policy that PI space MUST NOT be sub-assigned, which the NCC interprets most strictly (because the vast amount of "grey" between "ok" and "not ok" is hard to codify into hostmaster guidelines). OTOH, I have not heard that complaint from actual hosting providers for a while, so maybe the issue is not that big anymore. *If* we go to "there is only one type of addresses" anymore, we have two options - abandon IPv6 PI (as in "not so expensive, but independent space") completely, problem solved -> I do not think we can reasonably do that - find a way to solve the needs for both RIPE members and non-members, with maximum flexibility, with only one type of addresses, taking "real world" address distribution chains (LIR->network operator-> hosting provider->customer->hosted virtual machines, for example) and "real world" financial constraints into account. 2013-06 aims to achieve the latter, while proposing / finding specific solutions for all the small details that come up if such a radical change is implemented. I think the presentation at RIPE67 was a bit too fast for the WG - it could have spent a bit more time on the background and "do we want to go there" before overwhelming you with questions about details to be solved. For that, I apologize - I did review the presentation beforehand with the proposers, and assumed "yes, this should work out nicely"... Anyway. I think what we need to hear now from the community (*you*) is where we want to go: - do nothing, our policy for IPv6 PA and IPv6 PI "as of today" is fine - keep the distinction, work on the IPv6 PI policy (if the pain is large enough that someone actually volunteers to come with a proposal) - go the big step, unify IPv6 PA and IPv6 PI, and solve all the detail problems that need to be addressed if we go there. Going for one of the first options would mean abandoning 2013-06 - but if that's what the community wants, it's much better to do it *now* than to invest more time in text, impact analysis, a few rounds of review phase, and *then* give up the project. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

9 10

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and Impact Analysis Published
by Gert Doering 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

Dear AP WG, On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:01:24AM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > [new version of 2013-03 published] > > The rest of the proposal document, including the new policy text, has not changed. > [..] > We encourage you to read the proposal and the impact analysis and send any > comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 5 December 2013. Based on the particular circumstances here, namely that the policy text is completely unchanged from the previous version, the WG chairs have decided that we do NOT require everybody to state their support or opposition to the proposal again. So: if you supported this proposal before, and still support it, we'll take your statements given in the previous review period into account here. Similarily, if you opposed it, and still oppose it, no need to re-state that, as we'll also take this into account. OTOH, what we would really like to hear is "I did not like the previous version of the proposal due to the negative signals it sends out to the world, but with the new supporting notes it's good now, so support!" - or possibly "I was fine with the old text, but the new notes are all wrong now, so I can no longer support it" (that would be bad news). thanks :-) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and Impact Analysis Published
by Marco Schmidt 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

Dear colleagues, Following feedback received from the community, the title and the introduction for the proposal 2013-03 (formerly titled "No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup") have been edited and published. The proposal is now entitled "Post Depletion Adjustment of Procedures to Match Policy Objectives, and Clean-up of Obsolete Policy Text". The impact analysis prepared by the RIPE NCC in relation to this proposal has also been published. The rest of the proposal document, including the new policy text, has not changed. The following changes have been made to the proposal: - New proposal title - Revised introductory text, explaining the purpose of the proposal - Adjusted Rationale a.7 in support of the proposal You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 The draft policy documents are available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03/draft We encourage you to read the proposal and the impact analysis and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 5 December 2013. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0