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

(draft) Minutes from RIPE 63
by Gert Doering 27 Feb '12

27 Feb '12

Hi APWG, the draft minutes from RIPE 63 are now online: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ap/minutes/minutes-from-ripe-63 please let us know if something is missing or not correct. The minutes have been reviewed, but they are quite long and detailed, and mistakes happen. 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

Multihomed demand for ISP
by Richard Krogh (RKG) 23 Feb '12

23 Feb '12

Hi. Not shure if I am writing in the correct forum, but here goes: My company is recognized as an ISP, caused by our lease/reservation of RIPE based IP addresses. Question: Is it a ripe-demand that ISPs should have multihomed lines to their equipment or is single line OK? (beware that I am not talking of performance or the company's safety, only about what demands RIPE require). Thanks in advance. Richard Krogh

2 2

Policy proposal 2011-02: "Removal of Multihomed Requirement for IPv6 PI" Implemented
by Kjell Leknes 22 Feb '12

22 Feb '12

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-02, "Removal of Multihomed Requirement for IPv6 PI", has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now ready to accept requests for IPv6 PI assignments without multihoming being a requirement. The full proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 The revised version of the IPv6 policy was published on 23 January 2012: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545 The new request form template for IPv6 PI assignments can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-546/ The new supporting notes can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-547/ Kind regards --- Kjell Leknes RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Draft Document will be produced (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by chrish＠consol.net 21 Feb '12

21 Feb '12

Hi! On 02/17/2012 03:05 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > With the agreement of the Address Policy WG Chairs, the proposer > decided to move the proposal to the Review Phase. The RIPE NCC will Just to avoid any oversight: it is version 2 which is moved to the review phase, which lacks consensus. Regards, Chris

2 1

2011-05 Draft Document will be produced (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Emilio Madaio 17 Feb '12

17 Feb '12

Dear Colleagues, The discussion period for the proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has ended. With the agreement of the Address Policy WG Chairs, the proposer decided to move the proposal to the Review Phase. The RIPE NCC will also conduct and publish an impact analysis about the proposal, as per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE". This documentation will now be prepared for review. We will publish the documents shortly and we will make an announcement. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Emilio Madaio 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation", has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 13 March 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

New Article on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Address Space Growth per Country
by Mirjam Kuehne 06 Feb '12

06 Feb '12

Dear colleagues, Please see a new article by Emile Aben on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Address Space Growth per Country https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ipv4-address-space-growth-per-count… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

2011-04 Draft Document will be produced (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Emilio Madaio 03 Feb '12

03 Feb '12

Dear Colleagues, The discussion period for the proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-545 has ended. With the agreement of the Address Policy WG Chairs, the proposers decided to move the proposal to the Review Phase as per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE". A draft document will now be prepared for review. We will publish the document shortly and we will make an announcement. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2011 IPv4 Allocation Statistics on RIPE Labs
by Mirjam Kuehne 03 Feb '12

03 Feb '12

[apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, We just published some interesting IPv4 allocation statistics on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv4-allocation-statistics-2011 Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 Proposal Accepted (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 26 Jan '12

26 Jan '12

Hi Emilio, does this mean that the changes are already implemented by the IPRAs or is there going to be another announcement? Thanks, Wilfried. Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE > Document ripe-538 has been accepted by the RIPE community. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 > > > The updated RIPE Document is ripe-498 and is available at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545/ > > > Thank you for your input. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC

2 1

Correction Re: 2011-02 Proposal Accepted (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
by Emilio Madaio 23 Jan '12

23 Jan '12

Dear Colleagues, in the previous message a mistake occurred. Apologies for the incorrect document reference. The new updated RIPE Document is ripe-545 (not ripe-498) and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545/ Apologies for any inconvenience Regards Emilio On 1/23/12 1:39 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE > Document ripe-538 has been accepted by the RIPE community. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 > > > The updated RIPE Document is ripe-498 and is available at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545/ > > > Thank you for your input. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > >

1 0

2011-02 Proposal Accepted (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
by Emilio Madaio 23 Jan '12

23 Jan '12

Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE Document ripe-538 has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 The updated RIPE Document is ripe-498 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545/ Thank you for your input. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2011-02 has been accepted
by Gert Doering 20 Jan '12

20 Jan '12

Hi, On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 09:52:53AM +0100, Iñigo Ortiz de Urbina wrote: > > My statistics are at http://www.space.net/~gert/weekly/ - and they are > > > Broken link? :-) Indeed, sorry: My statistics are at http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/weekly/ there was a /RIPE/ missing. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

Policy proposal 2011-02 has been accepted
by Sander Steffann 20 Jan '12

20 Jan '12

Dear working group, After we (the chairs of this working group) have declared consensus on policy proposal 2011-02 the policy development process has been evaluated by the collective of all the RIPE working group chairs. After a very thorough analysis (this has not been an easy process!) they reached the conclusion that the declaration of consensus is valid. We now ask the RIPE NCC to implement policy proposal 2011-02. As promised we also give ourselves the task to keep a very close eye on the effects of this policy change. We will report on these effects at least at every RIPE meeting. Thank you, The APWG Chairs

3 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Nick Hilliard 19 Jan '12

19 Jan '12

I have a direct interest in this proposal. Having got that out of the way, I generally agree with principal of the proposal. If a bunch of organisations want to bunch together and set up some common infrastructure for interconnection, this is probably more important than giving public ip to a tiny number of dial up end users. One suggestion: > Assignments will only be made to IXPs who have already applied for, or > received an IPv6 assignment for their peering LAN. This is pointless. You can't make people use IPv6 and politically stuffing it down the throat of an IXP won't do anything other than cause facepalming. It certainly won't cause ipv6 to be more rapidly deployed. Either IPv6 will happen because of necessity or it won't. If IXP participants want ipv6, then they will push the exchange operator to implement it, and it will be done. But mandating an ipv6 assignment request in an ipv4 assignment policy is, well, silly. Also, a nit: > This space will be used to run an Internet Exchange Point peering LAN, > other uses are forbidden. The comma should be replaced with either a semicolon or else a full stop. Nick

4 5

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Henk Uijterwaal 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

On 17/01/2012 14:25, Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > The text of the policy proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs > with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback > received on the mailing list. We have published the new version > (version 2.0) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the > proposal. > > Changes in version 2.0 include: > > - Specified that a /16 will be reserved from the final /8 > - The addition of two bullet points on the assignment size and on the > use of space returned in the new section 5.6.2. Detail: section 5 should (probably) say "clause 1 or clause 2". More general: it is entirely possible that the final /8 (minus the /16 for IXPs) will be distributed before the /16 for IXPs has run out. What will happen to the IXP-/16 then? Considering that any new organization will only get IPv6, a new IXP in that region will only need v6 connectivity anyway, so why have a seperate block then? Henk > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 > > > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments > to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 14 February 2012. > > Regards, > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)

1 0

2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Emilio Madaio 17 Jan '12

17 Jan '12

Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 2.0) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. Changes in version 2.0 include: - Specified that a /16 will be reserved from the final /8 - The addition of two bullet points on the assignment size and on the use of space returned in the new section 5.6.2. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 14 February 2012. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Nick Hilliard 13 Jan '12

13 Jan '12

On 02/01/2012 14:10, Emilio Madaio wrote: > - The proposed new section 5.1.2 was reworded > - Section 5.7 was not removed but it was reworded two issues here: 1. I don't agree with this revised version for the reasons outlined in: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2011-November/006… specifically, there is still no justification required to move from /32 to /29. 2. if the plan is to use the entire /29 for the purposes of 6rd (or other transition tech) - so that you can assign up to a /62 for each 6rd end-user, then what address space does the LIR use for the rest of its allocation requirements? I.e. will another allocation will be required for traditional ipv6 assignments? Nick

7 11

status of 2011-02
by Gert Doering 05 Jan '12

05 Jan '12

Dear AP WG, 2011-02 has been a difficult one, and you have noticed the lack of visible progress. So let us explain, and propose a way forward. The RIPE policy development process calls for "consensus" to make policy from policy proposals. Sometimes it's very clear if consensus has been reached, and sometimes it's very clear that consensus has NOT been reached. When looking for consensus, we have to see if there are objections to the proposal, and if those objections are justified - see the beginning of section 2 of RIPE-500: 'In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions for changes to the proposal and objections regarding the proposal must be justified with supporting arguments'. This is explicitly repeated in section 2.4. In 2011-02, we have the case of "rough consensus with objections": We have a number of people who spoke up in favour of the proposal, both during the discussion/review phases and during Last Call. A few persons had serious doubts about routing table growth and about PI in general, but still spoke in favour of the proposal, or abstained. One person opposes the proposal, based on worries about highly accelerated and thus unsustainable routing table growth as a consequence of the proposal. Given that some of the other RIRs already have less restrictive IPv6 PI policies, the available numbers on their PI assignments and the routes seen in the global IPv6 BGP table do not back this assumption. Neither does the data from the global IPv4 BGP table, where the RIPE region has always had a very relaxed PI policy. So the AP WG chairs have decided (after long discussion) that we do have rough consensus on this policy proposal, and the remaining objections will be ignored. Sander Steffann announced this at the APWG meeting - and one member of the WG spoke up at the microphone and disagreed with our conclusion. So we spent some more weeks discussing and thinking about this, and this is what we do now: - the WG chairs declare consensus - but the *working group* has the last word on any policy decision, so we call for two weeks of "Last Call" on this decision Procedure-wise, this is not about the *content* of the proposal now, and it's not useful to repeat the discussion about routing table growth etc. now - we've heard all arguments. What we need to decide now is whether the voices from the community so far form "rough consensus" on the proposal, or not. If you, the WG, decides that we do not have consensus, the policy proposal goes back to "discussion phase", and the proposer will need to work with those people that spoke up against the proposal to integrate their ideas, and come up with a new version of the policy proposal that might then reach consensus. sincerly yours, Gert Doering & Sander Steffann, APWG chairs -- 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

21 52

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Sascha Lenz 03 Jan '12

03 Jan '12

Hi, > Dear Colleagues, > > The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum > Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation", has been revised based on the > community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published > the new version (version 2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion > Phase is set for the proposal. > > Highlights of the changes in version 2.0 are: > > - The proposed new section 5.1.2 was reworded > - Section 5.7 was not removed but it was reworded > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 > > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments > to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 30 January 2012. > looks basically fine to me - the new version doesn't change anything i liked about the initial one. Although maybe.. "Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary." ... is a little vague for people who haven't followed the discussion here ("why no /29 per default in the first place?"). I don't see a general problem with that wording and have no better idea, just saying that some might be confused about what's the point here when reading the updated policy later. Or maybe it's just me _because_ i followed the discussion :-) -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si 02 Jan '12

02 Jan '12

On 1/2/12 3:10 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum > Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation", has been revised based on the > community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published > the new version (version 2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion > Phase is set for the proposal. > > Highlights of the changes in version 2.0 are: > > - The proposed new section 5.1.2 was reworded > - Section 5.7 was not removed but it was reworded Hi, Emilio, thnx for your efforts and all the help with this proposal. Just to add my .2 cents - we considered Remco's and James's suggestions, first one to give out /32 by default and give out more only if LIR asks for it (Remco) and we re-added section 5.7 with clarification, that every holder of legacy /32 can ask for extension of allocation. This is what we heard from you - community - in last few months of discussion. Hope that we made this proposal more acceptable for everyone. Thnx for all your input, Jan Zorz

1 0

2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Emilio Madaio 02 Jan '12

02 Jan '12

Dear Colleagues, The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. Highlights of the changes in version 2.0 are: - The proposed new section 5.1.2 was reworded - Section 5.7 was not removed but it was reworded You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 30 January 2012. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
by poty＠iiat.ru 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

>... we are constraining the IPv6 > address distribution because of ...? > > Jan > There are so many people using as the main and the last argument the concern about weak distribution of IPv6, that I'm personally becoming against anything they suggest. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

6 5

Update in the RIPE document for IPv6 Allocation and Assignment policies
by Emilio Madaio 07 Dec '11

07 Dec '11

Dear colleagues, An editorial correction has been made to ripe-523 "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy". The updated document has been renumbered to ripe-538. It is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-538 There was a mismatch between the policy text and the index title for section 5.4.2. This mismatch occurred between the updates from ripe-421 to ripe-450. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. Kind regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE NCC address request retracted
by Axel Pawlik 07 Dec '11

07 Dec '11

Dear colleagues, as a matter of good housekeeping I would like to announce that the RIPE NCC has retracted its request for addresses for "Business Operations", as presented at RIPE 63 (http://ripe63.ripe.net/presentations/53-resource-request.pdf). kind regards, Axel Pawlik

7 8