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

The final /8 policy proposals (2008-06 and 2009-04)
by Sander Steffann 23 Jun '09

23 Jun '09

Hello WG, As many of you know there are two policy proposals that describe how the final /8 from IANA should be used. These are policy proposals 2008-06 and 2009-04. There are a lot of differences between those two proposals, and it is not really possible to have them both at the same time. That means that this working group has to decide which way to go. Because there are so many differences I want to focus the discussion on a specific question at this point in time: "Do we (this working group) want to put IPv6 related requirements in the policy?" The current proposals have the following IPv6 related requirements: - Proposal 2009-04 requires the LIR to meet the requirements of the Preparation (1st request) or Transition (subsequent requests) phase of the transition plan specified in RFC 5211. - Proposal 2008-06 does not define any IPv6 requirements for an LIR. I can see the benefit (stimulate native IPv6 deployment) of such requirements, but I can also see downsides (for example organisations that need IPv4 space but can't implement IPv6 for some reason). Do organisations that don't implement IPv6 cause a problem for the community (and do we need policy to prevent that), or do they only cause problems for themselves (and should we only limit the amount of IPv4 space they can get)? When discussion possible requirements we must remember that the RIPE NCC IP Resource Analysts (formerly known as Hostmasters) should be able to check those requirements when evaluating a request. We should also look at possible loopholes. I don't think we want an LIR to give IPv6 access to a handful of customers just to be able to get another big block of IPv4 space. Once we have discussed this basic issue I'll steer the discussion back to the other differences between the proposals. Please keep the discussion on this topic for now. Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

5 4

2008-05 Proposal Accepted (Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM)
by Ingrid Wijte 23 Jun '09

23 Jun '09

PDP Number: 2008-05 Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM Dear Colleagues Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2008-05 has been accepted by the RIPE community. The related RIPE policy documents have now been updated, published and can be found at: IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-471.html and IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-472.html The proposal is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-05.html The RIPE NCC will implement this new policy within one month. Thank you for your input. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2008-05 New Draft Documents Published (Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM)
by Filiz Yilmaz 22 Jun '09

22 Jun '09

PDP Number: 2008-05 Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM Dear Colleagues The text of the policy proposal 2008-05, "Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM" has been revised. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today. The draft documents for the proposal have also been published, as well as the impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-05.html and the draft documents at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-449-draft2008-05.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-450-draft2008-05.html We encourage you to read the draft documents and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 23 April 2009. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

14 34

IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey Now Underway!
by Paul Rendek 18 Jun '09

18 Jun '09

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, As announced at RIPE 58, TNO and GNKS Consult are working with the RIPE NCC to conduct a survey, sponsored by the European Commission, on the current and future use of IPv6 throughout the RIPE NCC service region. The IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey is now online, and we encourage all members of the RIPE community to participate: http://is-nri.com/take/?i=150597&h=1GwWe3dXXMcPrRrOw5s2yg The purpose of the survey is to better understand where the community is moving, and what can be done to ensure the Internet community is ready for the widespread adoption of IPv6. The survey was developed in consultation with members of the RIPE community, and is inspired by the 2008 survey conducted by ARIN and CAIDA in North America. It is sponsored by the European Commission, which has actively supported the adoption of IPv6, in the interests of innovation and the continuing competitiveness of European industry. We encourage all organisations in the RIPE NCC service region to participate in this survey, which we hope will establish a comprehensive view of present IPv6 penetration and future plans for IPv6 deployment. By making the survey design similar to the ARIN/CAIDA survey, we hope that the results will contribute to a better global picture of current and future IPv6 deployment. The survey is composed of 16 questions and can be completed in 10-15 minutes. For those without IPv6 allocations or assignments, or who have not yet deployed IPv6, the questions will be fewer in number. The survey will close on 3 July 2009. Results of the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey will be presented and discussed at RIPE 59, which will be held 5-9 October in Lisbon, Portugal. Results will also be published on IPv6 Act Now: http://ipv6actnow.org Please provide your name and contact information on the survey form if you wish to receive the draft survey analysis when available. Please also indicate whether you are willing to share additional data with the TNO and GNKS Consult IPv6 Deployment Monitoring team. We appreciate your time and interest in completing this survey. If you have any questions concerning the survey, please send an email to <info(a)gnksconsult.com >. Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communications RIPE NCC

3 2

2009-08 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs)
by Ingrid Wijte 16 Jun '09

16 Jun '09

PDP Number: 2009-08 IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs 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/2009-08.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 1 July 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Assistant Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

4 3

2009-02 Last Call for Comments (Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC)
by Ingrid Wijte 16 Jun '09

16 Jun '09

PDP Number: 2009-02 Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2009-02 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-02.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 14 July 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

AW: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08
by Marcus.Gerdon 09 Jun '09

09 Jun '09

I support this proposal as is. Where's the reason for treating LIR's different than end users in regards to 'validity of the assignment' and return of a resource? If routing reasons are the main criteria for assignment existing policies already define the return of the resource as soon as the reasons become invalid. Or did I miss something? kind regards, Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon(a)versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Geschäftsführer: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Von: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Stream Service Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Juni 2009 02:45 An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08 Because of point 2 I don't support this proposal, if/when this point is removed I support this proposal. Some people don't want that RIPE is saying anything about routing policy, so it should also not look for this for returning IPv6/IPv4 IP assignments if you ask me. From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of David Freedman Sent: maandag 8 juni 2009 22:05 To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08 Can I just ask for clarification of the following: "the LIR must demonstrate the unique routing requirements for the PI assignment." and "The LIR must return the IPv6 PI assignment within a period of six months should the unique routing requirements for the PI assignment no longer be met." 1. does this mean that the following question from RIPE-468 is no longer valid for routing? "% Is the End User requesting extra address space for routing and/or % administrative reasons? (Yes/No)" 2. Will this include the space not being routed at all? or does this require that the space be routed? Regards, Dave. ------------------------------------------------ David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Limited http://www.clara.net -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net on behalf of Frederic Sent: Mon 6/8/2009 20:07 To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08 hi, we support this proposal. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-08.html bst regards. Frederic

1 0

2009-08
by Frederic 09 Jun '09

09 Jun '09

hi, we support this proposal. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-08.html bst regards. Frederic

4 3

RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
by Marcus.Gerdon 08 Jun '09

08 Jun '09

Dear colleagues, I can't give support to this proposal as it is. Some of you have already argumented against the resulting de-aggregation and therefore polution of the (IPv6) routing table to be expected. The mindful use of 'Operators Choice' you can all see when browsing the IPv4 table. There *will* be operators de-aggregating an allocation just because they need one - i.e. - /40 to be traversing a defined link. Allowing allocations to be routed at operators liking (which is meant by 'Operators Choice' of course) without violating any policy will supposedly never again be confined once it has been started. Before starting to fire back arguments like 'filtering bcp is at minimum allocation size', 'RIPE doesn't guarantee routing/reachability' etc. think about how to get out of this later on. An example: tell a customer, possibly one of the larger ones you have, that the homemade isp at the other end of the world is polluting the global routing tables and therefore won't receive the customers emails as you are filtering *valid* advertisements (which would be the result after the policy change) based on a recommendation. This doesn't work out. Sooner or later anybody will somehow be forced to accept any de-aggregated trash. IPv6 had been designed for hierarchical addressing. I understand there is need for de-aggregation to support traffic engineering, load-sharing, localized routing or alike. I remember (darkly, so pls don't take me by word) a discussion along the IPv6 PI years (?) regarding geological allocation of address space. So why do we now want to go into the opposite direction? I'm not quite happy having IPv4 and IPv6 being compared in regards to policies and assignment of topics onto wg's. IPv6 has an inherent combination of address assignment/allocation and routing. Doing one without the other in mind will result in IPv4 world again. That said, I come to the part of 'as it is' I stated to the beginning. I suggest to modify the routing requirements to support some level of de-aggregation instead of removing them completely. Why not change b) advertise the allocation that they will receive as a single prefix if the prefix is to be used on the Internet; into something like (roughly worded for short) b) advertise the allocation in whole, and if needed additional overlapping more-specifics up to an 8th the allocations size at most I think this might help in limiting the number of de-aggregated routes within the tables while allowing for a still more stringent filtering based on the 'minimum allocation size'/8. In cases where regional routing or load-sharing across multiple links to the same peer is required special arrangements can always be made I think (using no-export or alike). At least the requirement of advertising the aggregated allocation would maintain reachability across min-alloc-size filters and allow for serious arguments - aka finger-pointing - in regards to customer discussions when traffic isn't able to traverse the aggregate route. regards, Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon(a)versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Geschäftsführer: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Jeroen Massar > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Mai 2009 18:37 > An: Frederic > Cc: alain.bidron(a)orange-ftgroup.com; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] > 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements > from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) > > Frederic wrote: > > we do not support this proposal and we would garant routing for min > > ipv6-PI block assignement. > > RIPE NCC cannot guarantee anything regarding routing. You need to > communicate with the rest of the parties where you want your prefix to > go if they want to accept it or not. > > Please see: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html#routability > (see section 4.2. Routability Not Guaranteed in RIPE-466) > As mentioned in the text of the proposal. > > > Clearly there is a lot of confusion about this, thus, as I > mentioned in > my other mail, the text can be amended by removing those > statements, but > then there should definitely be a clear link to the above document. > > Greets, > Jeroen > >

1 0

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

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

You lose your arguments? And just braving your "involvements". Ha-Ha! I'm with RIPE from 1997, and yearly attending RIPE's meeting, so I can't be called "not working as part of the RIPE addressing community". But it IS not argument and I'll never be so puffed up to use it as an argument. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:32 PM > 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] > > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 02:24:42PM +0400, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > > This has always been my understanding on the principles that govern > > > the RIRs' operation - "provide unique numbers to the people that > > > need unique numbers". Be it IPv4, IPv6 or ASes. > > > > No, because it has (providing the "numbers") the scope - the > Internet, > > If I want to create my own network, not connected to the scope, I > > don't need to use any of rules of disconnected network. I'm surprised > > that you are not understanding and differentiating that. > > To phrase this a bit more blunt: you're completely off-base. I was > wording this in a polite way would have permitted you to step back > without losing face. > > Before accusing people in this list that they have no clue or no > understanding how this thing works, how the RIR system works, and so on > - maybe you should actually try to do a bit of reading on how long some > of these people have been actively working as part of the RIPE > addressing community. > > > > Maybe, following your thoughts, I could get the IP number for my pet? > > Just to be more "connected" to the network? > > If your pet has an IP connection, and you can make a good point that > it's very likely that your pet will be connected to other pets *using > IP networks*, the point could be argued that this is a valid usage of > IP resources. > > If your pet is not using IP networking technology, it doesn't need IP > addresses. > > > (This was my last e-mail on this topic, and I would kindly ask the > other mailing list participants to refrain from answering this troll > until he shows a bit more interesting in understanding reality). > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 > > 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

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

> -----Original Message----- > From: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet [mailto:Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at] > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:09 AM > 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) > > Vladislav, > > I have to strongly disagree with your assertions. > > poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > > 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? > > First of all, RIPE is the Community, the RIPE NCC is executing the > policies > and providing e.g. the Registration Services. > RIPE = RIPE NCC of course in my writings. Just to be more short. > Every organsiation obtaining services, e.g. an IP-Address Assignment or > an Allocation are contributing to offset the expenses; either directly > or by way of an existing LIR. What service do YOU mean? Could it be possible for me (just for prestige of my company) to obtain several class-A IPv4 blocks just paying for the RIPE NCC (now correctly written?) service? We are discriminating here not to waste the address space for that? Why we should be so happy to waste the space in the other way? I speak not about expenses, you know! > > 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? > PS: we have already seen the disadvantage of liberally applying > RFC1918, > i.e. non-unique, addressing in organisations that eventually were > (forced > to) connecting to other organisations.... Sometimes it IS disadvantage, sometimes - not. It is really depends on the point of view. I think RFC 1918 prolonged the life of v4 space and it IS an advantage. And problems... Problems were, is and will be... It shouldn't be use as an argument. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

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 Gert Doering > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 4:00 PM > To: michael.dillon(a)bt.com > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and > IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled] > > Hi, > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:03:16AM +0100, michael.dillon(a)bt.com wrote: > > A very large number of organizations depend on these > > internetworks, and they would not be terribly happy if > > ISPs would hijack the entire IP address space for their > > own profits. But I think that the RIR boards understand > > this and have no intention of changing the rules to > > reserve IP addresses only for the public Internet. > > Let me second that. > > This has always been my understanding on the principles that govern > the RIRs' operation - "provide unique numbers to the people that need > unique numbers". Be it IPv4, IPv6 or ASes. No, because it has (providing the "numbers") the scope - the Internet, If I want to create my own network, not connected to the scope, I don't need to use any of rules of disconnected network. I'm surprised that you are not understanding and differentiating that. Maybe, following your thoughts, I could get the IP number for my pet? Just to be more "connected" to the network? > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 > > 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 > Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

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

Yes, Wilfried, interesting, but it seems that YOU are behind the reality, not mine. > -----Original Message----- > From: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet [mailto:Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at] > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:51 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] > > poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > > IPv4 exists most of it's time without RIR at all. So it's not prove > > anything. > > May I suggest that you read up on reality, in particular the period > of substantial growth and wide-spread penetration? > > > Other consideration is only philosophy, not policy. > > Interesting... > My feeling is that we should go back to real-life issues. > > Wilfried.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by Andy Davidson 31 May '09

31 May '09

On 31 May 2009, at 11:28, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > "Andy Davidson" <andy(a)nosignal.org> wrote: > >> IP networks can't function properly (or at least, as intended) when >> consumers of addresses start using addresses that are already >> assigned to others already. >> >> We shall see this be a problem for networks who ignore this warning >> as the last v4 /8s start to be assigned. > > Actually who is mandated to act as a policeman when this happens? > Is it IANA? Is it the RIRs? Is it informal routing agreements > outside the realm of these organizations? Nobody - just as nobody can guarantee reach-ability. Andy

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]
by poty＠iiat.ru 31 May '09

31 May '09

See in-line: > -----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: Friday, May 29, 2009 2:03 PM > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Let me describe a real situation that we have with some > of our customers. One of several IP networks that we > operate is called Radianz. This network has PoPs in > 120 countries and has over 3000 customers connected > to it, many of them with multiple connections in different > cities. This network is an internetwork because it > interconnects the networks of 3000 other organizations. > In order to function, this network requires globally > unique IP addresses to be used for each of its > member networks even though it is not connected to > the Internet. > > The Radianz network is not a private network. It is > also not a public network. But it is a SHARED network > just like the public Internet. 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? > Historically, IANA has > always allocated globally unique IP addresses to > organizations on this type of shared network. When > RFC 2050 was written by authors from the RIRs, including > RIPE, they included this text: > > the organization has no intention of connecting to > the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still > requires a globally unique IP address. The organization > should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918. > If it is determined this is not possible, they can be > issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses. > Now, the "historically" invented state should be corrected. Not all IPv4 practice should be automatically go to IPv6. Several of them are too company-specific rather than serve ALL community. > > A very large number of organizations depend on these > internetworks, and they would not be terribly happy if > ISPs would hijack the entire IP address space for their > own profits. But I think that the RIR boards understand > this and have no intention of changing the rules to > reserve IP addresses only for the public Internet. A very large, but not all! A very large number of organization (I think much more than for Radianz) depends on the services, not presented here and not gain any good from that. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

2 1