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

Proposal 2006-05 minimum /24 allocation
by Sander Steffann 12 Mar '08

12 Mar '08

Hi Michael, > I see that the review phase for this proposal ends in a few days. Actually it ended a year ago :) This proposal has been waiting for policy 2007-01 since then. I am glad to hear your thoughts about this proposal. We will have to wait with deciding about consensus until 2007-01 is done though. Thanks! Sander

1 0

Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 12 Mar '08

12 Mar '08

I've been looking at policy proposal 2007-08 about transfering addresses between LIRs directly. I'm not sure what the current status of this is, but it is one of a family of similar proposals before ARIN and APNIC. In the other RIRs, people who support this type of transfer proposal seem to consider it to be the first step towards trading in IP address contracts, i.e. creating a market for buying and selling contracts which give the right to use IP addresses. I've been reading through the MiFID directives and some of the English language material covering MiFID, trying to figure out whether these IP address contracts would fall under the MiFID guidelines. Of course, EU guidelines are not the same as laws, and the laws in this area enable a regulator, who then goes on to make regulations. I have come to the conclusion that the Dutch law is the one that is most likely to currently apply, since RIPE is run out of Amsterdam and since the policy proposal calls on RIPE to register these transfers. My knowledge of the Germanic languages is not good enough to really make sense of the Dutch legislation. I wonder if someone who speaks Dutch, or who is a native speaker of German or a Scandinavian language, could have a look at the text of the Dutch law here <http://www.st-ab.nl/wetten/0490_Wet_financiele_dienstverlening_Wfd.htm> to see if the definitions cover the sale of contracts which give the right to use IP addresses. I'm pretty sure that "effect" in Article 1(i) defines what is a "security" but since MiFID has a lot of text about which kind of organizations and activities are covered by the new rules, I suspect you would need to read more than the definition of this one term. Since many people seem to have a vision of an IP address trading market that functions similar to a securities market like Euronext, I think that we need some proper legal guidance that tells us the boundaries for RIPE policy. If we step over those boundaries, then the MiFID rules will apply to everything that we do with IPv4 address allocations. --Michael Dillon

3 3

Proposal 2006-05 minimum /24 allocation
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 11 Mar '08

11 Mar '08

I see that the review phase for this proposal ends in a few days. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html I would like to speak in favour of allowing end users to get a minimum of a /24 allocation when routing is an issue. For instance, a customer with an application running out of a data centre has their own AS number and wants to get PI space from RIPE. Since data centres typically hide their architecture using RFC 1918 space behind NAT and load balancers, etc., it doesn't make sense to allocate a longer prefix just because their publicly visible machines fit in less than a /24. For instance, if RIPE were to allocate a /26 (64 addresses) rather than a /24 (256 addresses), the number of addresses saved is only 192 which is such a small number that it cannot be considered significant on the larger scale. The issue of routing table slots is irrelevant since the End User intends to announce their prefix whatever its length is. I don't believe that there is any advantage to conserving such small amounts of space. Instead of dancing around the issue and forcing people into creative host accounting to justify a /24, let's just make it simple and offer that as the minimum when, and only when, the End User can show that routing is an issue. I would not be surprised to find that RIPE requires such End Users to already have an Asnum or apply for one at the same time. That seems reasonable. ------------------------------------------------------- Michael Dillon RadianzNet Capacity Forecast & Plan -- BT Design 66 Prescot St., London, E1 8HG, UK Mobile: +44 7900 823 672 Internet: michael.dillon(a)bt.com Phone: +44 20 7650 9493 Fax: +44 20 7650 9030 http://www.btradianz.com Use the wiki: http://collaborate.intra.bt.com/

3 2

2007-01 Draft Documents Published (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by Filiz Yilmaz 09 Mar '08

09 Mar '08

PDP Number: 2007-01 Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, The draft documents for the proposal described in 2007-01 have been published. Please note that this is a new version of the proposal. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. The proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and a sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR) or the RIPE NCC must be established before the End User receives Internet number resources (Autonomous System (AS) Numbers, Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 and IPv6 address space, Internet Exchange Point (IXP) and anycasting assignments) directly from the RIPE NCC. It also states that the text in the policy should mention more explicitly that PI assignments cannot be sub-assigned. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html and the draft documents at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-421-draft.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-389-draft.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-256-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft documents and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 3 April 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

3 2

2008-03 New Policy Proposal (2007-06 and 2007-07 are withdrawn)
by Filiz Yilmaz 03 Mar '08

03 Mar '08

PDP Number: 2008-03 Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space Dear Colleagues, Following the feedback received during RIPE 55, the proposers of proposals 2007-06 and 2007-07 withdrew them and jointly created a new one. This proposal is now published and available for discussion. The proposal describes the process for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space from IANA to the RIRs. When a minimum amount of available space is reached, one /8 will be allocated from IANA to each RIR, replacing the current IPv4 allocation policy. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-03.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 3 March 2008. Withdrawn proposals are archived and can still be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-07.html and http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-06.html Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] applicability of a request for 60000 IPv4 addresses/systems in one shot...
by Mario Reale 29 Feb '08

29 Feb '08

Dear Fotis, >Others have done so (EUCHINAGRID project, afaik) and they only thing >they came up to has been, at best, a patch that can provide private-IPv4 >over IPv6. But, private we've got already, so that's not any progress. to be more precise, what EuChinaGRID did was not to provide patches to provide private-IPv4 over IPv6. Within EuChinaGRID we did essentially 2 things: First, we deployed gLite and GOS on a testbed and studied the behavior using IPv6. In doing this studies, we also exploited NAT-PT to perform specific Client-Server studies. Second, since Research and Education network are IPv6 native , we are carrying out several tests, native IPv6, especially within the Chinese part of out project. Regards, Mario Reale EuChinaGRID / Work Package 2 -- Mario Reale Consortium GARR ------------------------ The Italian Academic and Research Network http://www.garr.it Via dei Tizii, 6 I - 00186 ROMA Italy Phone: +39 06 4962 2537 Fax: +39 06 4962 2044 EMail: mario.reale(a)garr.it

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] applicability of a request for 60000 IPv4 addresses/systems in one shot...
by Fotis Georgatos 26 Feb '08

26 Feb '08

Dear Michael et al, > Have you investigated how much work would be needed to make the > grid work over IPv6, or perhaps use an IPv6 VPN to connect sites > but use IPv4 over the VPN to use the grid? Others have done so (EUCHINAGRID project, afaik) and they only thing they came up to has been, at best, a patch that can provide private-IPv4 over IPv6. But, private we've got already, so that's not any progress. > Have you asked Athanassios Liakopoulos or Kostas Kalevras > or Dimitrios Kalogeras to look at ways of solving your problem > with the grid and IPv6? Yes, with a majority of them I had already discussed. And we all agree that if there was IPv4 support in glite it would have been so much better. (Or, if we were grid middleware developers, which we are clearly not). > The bottom line is that experimental allocations are made for > experiments > that benefit the whole Internet, not just a few schools in one country. I believe that understanding this as a school experiment is a bit flawed: Has anybody ever done a large VPN-for-VMs IPv4 adress space allocation? I have never heard of something like that (end2end) but perhaps it exists; and am well aware though of some -open/public- IPv6 tunneling solutions. Collecting knowledge from such an endeavour, were thousands of systems with end2end capability run contained in VMs, I believe is worthy for many, the more as multi-cores change the way we understand systems management. In the meantime, we had some more discussions and found out that making a request for public IPv4 address space is OK solely for Virtual Machines, even if the underlying machines already are on public IPv4 address space, as long as the request is indeed justified by real use - and documented. In other words, reserving experimental IPv4 address space is no longer our first option, since normal IPv4 address space appears to be doable. This is something for which we weren't sure earlier, if someone in this wg knows otherwise - in respect to the adress_policy - please let us know. I thank you, and also other recipients in this list, that took time to reply, some privately. Just to clarify what had been the issue, two extra answers: > * If these machines are already internet connected, then no *additional* IP > could be needed The >62000 machines are functioning within 1000s of NATs, in a 10.x.y.z scheme > * If these machines are not already internet connected then having an IP is > the least of yoru worries - you have to think how you are going to *route* > to them :) That's done and works just fine already for many years. There you go. cheers, Fotis

2 2

Update to the IPv4 Registry¹s Format and Content
by Leo Vegoda 21 Feb '08

21 Feb '08

This message has been sent to several lists. I apologise for duplicates. IANA has improved the format for the IPv4 Address Space registry. At the same time, the entries that were marked ³Various Registries² have been replaced with references to the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) that provides WHOIS and reverse DNS service for that /8 allocation. If you want to machine-process the IPv4 registry, the new fields are: * Prefix * Designation * Date * Whois * Status * Note where the Date will always be of the form ³YYYY-MM² and the status has the following possible values: RESERVED, LEGACY, ALLOCATED and UNALLOCATED /8 allocations that contain legacy assignments in them that are now managed by the RIRs have the text ³Administered by² in the Designation column. Legacy assignments refer to IP address allocations made before the RIR system was established. Reserved address space held by IANA does not have a date listed. The registry can be found at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space If you have questions about the structure of the new format, please send e-mail to iana(a)iana.org. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda Manager, Number Resources - IANA

1 0

applicability of a request for 60000 IPv4 addresses/systems in one shot...
by Fotis Georgatos 18 Feb '08

18 Feb '08

Dear all, I am a member of a -yet unofficial- effort in Greece, where we are in discussions on the potential of using Greek School Network resources (calculated at >62000 machines) with a scavenging technology developed in-house by NTUA [ref. http://gridathome.sourceforge.net/ & http://www.ntua.gr ] The idea is quite simple: you boot your systems or Virtual Machines with a LiveCD, you get an initial -normally private- IP address, and *then* a public one from a VPN tunnel, with which you implement and use full grid functionality because there's end2end network connectivity. Yes, there is a catch: this scheme requires extra publicly routable address space, if it is to be integrated with the existing grid infrastructure (and there are plenty of good reasons to do so, for us and others). I've been looking at http://www.ripe.net/docs/ipv4-policies.html and it appears to me that "Assignments for Internetworking Experiments" would be viable option to begin with but, under what conditions can we request standard address space for, say, 60000 PCs or Virtual Machines? What should we make clear in order to make this successfull in one shot? ps. Note that currently these resources lie within hundreds (thousands?), of NAT'd networks, in a multi-tier network. Our LiveWN technology can scale extremelly quickly, much faster than commitees in schools/government. :) The reason I am asking you is because we are about to prepare a TDR, Technical Design Report, and wish to confirm the validity of our options. ps2. at current stage IPv6 is not an option due to grid middleware limitations. thank you in advance for your time, Drs. Fotis Georgatos

2 1

Pushing 2007-01 forward
by Bernhard Schmidt 30 Jan '08

30 Jan '08

Hi, is there anything we (the community) can do to push 2007-01? http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html Regards, Bernhard

2 1

Legal status of IP addresses
by Sander Steffann 28 Jan '08

28 Jan '08

Hello, For your information: Last week there has been discussion about the EU legal status of an IP address [1]. This is about whether an IP address can be used to identify an individual and the privacy and data protection implications. Sincerely, Sander Steffann Address Policy co-chair [1] http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/012408-eu-aims-to-clarify-legal.html?f src=rss-security

1 0

"Dirty" recycled network assigned
by Max Tulyev 28 Jan '08

28 Jan '08

Hello All, I just got an assignment for my client (large PI block). But this block is listed in all DNS RBLs and DUN lists, as it was in use till Oct'07 as dynamic DHCP pool of other big ISP. So my client says they can't use this network, because mail service is blocked. RIPE rejected my request to change this network to another one: "As we do understand how unfortunate this is for **********, there is nothing we can do about prefixes that appear on so called black lists." How can I solve this? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

12 21

2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
by Filiz Yilmaz 19 Jan '08

19 Jan '08

PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. With the acceptance of this proposal, the RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time operation to assign a /56 IPv6 PI prefix to all End Users with an IPv4 assignment registered in the RIPE Database. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-01.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 12 February 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

27 62

2008-02 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
by Filiz Yilmaz 18 Jan '08

18 Jan '08

PDP Number: 2008-02 Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 12 February 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
by Marcin Gondek 16 Jan '08

16 Jan '08

Garry Glendown pisze: > Marcin Gondek wrote: >> If the price will be higher, then everybody join to RIPE as LIR. And >> then we will have +1000% of LIRs. Do "we" need this? >> Now everybody is waiting for some kind of statesment or procedure >> from RIPE side. >> > Price should be low enough to keep people from becoming an LIR > unnecessarily, but high enough to make them think twice about getting > space that they don't need ;) > Indeed -- Marcin Gondek / Drixter e-utp.net NIP: PL1181589645 REGON: 140584662 Tel. +48602159929 Fax. +48222012418 office(a)e-utp.net http://www.e-utp.net

1 0

PA vs PI routing pollution question
by Max Tulyev 07 Jan '08

07 Jan '08

Hello! As I send a lot of PI address space requests for my customers, RIPE hostmasters often says LIR is better than PI because of "That way they can receive as much contiguous (!) PA address space as they need." When I establish a new LIR, I write almost same request for PA, and it contains same address space usage plan for two years. PI networks requested after two years are not contiguous, and I understand why. Is it means RIPE reserve some contiguous network for future grow for LIRs? If yes, how big is this reservation? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

1 0

/24 in Europe, AP and North America?
by Hank Nussbacher 30 Nov '07

30 Nov '07

This may have been covered before but I'm not sure. I have a client that needs a /24 in Europe, a /24 in AP and a /24 in North America - all for multihoming purposes (in each area). If he becomes a RIPE member, can he get the 3 /24s and 3 ASNs of which only one set will be used in Europe? Or just get the /19 like everyone else, and carve it into 3 chunks and route them each from a different area? Thanks, Hank

4 3

2005-08 Implementation
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails.] Dear Colleagues, We previously announced that the policy proposal 2005-08, "Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy" had been accepted by the RIPE community. This policy has now been implemented by the RIPE NCC and the following RIPE Documents have been published: ripe-421, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-421.html ripe-422, "Supporting Notes for the IPv6 First Allocation Request Form" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-422.html ripe-425, "IPv6 First Allocation Request Form" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-425.html Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

2007-09 New Policy Proposal (Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool)
by Filiz Yilmaz 26 Nov '07

26 Nov '07

PDP Number: 2007-09 Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This policy will establish a process for RIR-to-RIR redistribution of the tail-end of the IPv4 pool, taking effect after the IANA Reserve is exhausted. Each redistribution Allocation will be triggered by the recipient RIR depleting its reserve to a 30 day supply, and will result in up to a 3 month supply being transferred from the RIR with the longest remaining time before it exhausts its own pool. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-09.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 24 December 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Filiz Yilmaz 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This proposal outlines a framework to migrate previously allocated IPv4 resources from one Local Internet Registry (LIR) to another LIR within the RIPE NCC Service Region. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 20 November 2007. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

14 24

Commercial IPv6 firewall support
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 07 Nov '07

07 Nov '07

Some people have claimed that they cannot yet sell IPv6 Internet access because there is no IPv6 firewall support. According to this ICANN study: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac021.pdf this is not quite true. At least 30% of the 42 vendors surveyed, had IPv6 support. According to this talk <http://www.guug.de/veranstaltungen/ecai6-2007/slides/2007-ECA-I6-Status -IPv6-Firewalling-PeterBieringer-Talk.pdf> many open-source and commercial firewalls supporting IPv6 are available. IPCop is based on Linux <http://www.ipcop.org/index.php?module=pnWikka&tag=IPCopScreenshots> m0n0wall is based on FreeBSD <http://m0n0.ch/wall/screenshots.php> pfSense is also based on FreeBSD <http://pfsense.com/index.php?id=26> FWBuilder is a management tool that builds filter setups for several different firewalls. <http://www.fwbuilder.org/archives/cat_screenshots.html> Checkpoint FW1 NGX R65 on SecurePlatform supports IPv6 FortiGate supports IPv6 in FortiOS 3.0 and up. Juniper SSG (formerly Netscreen) supports IPv6 in ScreenOS 6.0 and up. Cisco ASA (formerly PIX) supports IPv6 in version 7.0 and up. I suspect that the people complaining about IPv6 support are partially complaining because they have older hardware that the vendor does not plan to upgrade to IPv6 support until they have all features implemented in their newer products, and partially complaining because their vendor has not implemented some feature which they happen to use. Commercial firewall support may be lagging behind OS and router support, but not by much. And if commercial vendors are not responsive, maybe you should try pricing out an open source solution with a consultant. I believe there is a gap here that startup firewall companies could fill if they understand the enterprise market. --Michael Dillon

3 3

Hi, i need information
by Juan Felipe Botero Vega 07 Nov '07

07 Nov '07

Hi, I am working in a common project between the UPC (University Polithecnic of Catalonia, Spain) and Heanet (Ireland's National Education and Research Network). I know this is not a RPSL forum, but i need to know something about this language. In the RFC 2622 RPSL is well defined, but i don't have clear if it is possible to use RPSL for internal routing. My question is: is it possible to use RPSL to perform the following actions: 1. Configure a router announcing it's the networks it has connected to. 2. Configure the routing protocols in each router (this question depends directly of the previous one) 3. Configure the *routing policies *inside the network (i am not referring to BGP policies but policies of access control in each router inside a network). This could be applied also to OSPF areas?? Thanks for your attention.

2 1

2005-08 Proposal Accepted (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
by Filiz Yilmaz 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

PDP Number: 2005-08 Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy Dear Colleagues Consensus has been reached on the proposal described in 2005-08 and it is accepted by the RIPE community. This proposal is to amend the RIPE IPv6 address allocation policies regarding the definition of the default size of End Site allocations, the threshold value for End Site allocation efficiency, and the method of calculation of the End Site allocation efficiency metric. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08.html We will implement this new policy in approximately three weeks and notify you when it becomes effective. Thank you for your input. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by jwkckid1＠ix.netcom.com 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

Max and all, why can't it be enforced now? Why can these unused IP's be reclimed or at least parto of them? -----Original Message----- >From: Max Tulyev <president(a)ukraine.su> >Sent: Nov 3, 2007 4:40 PM >To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net >Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) > >Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >>> Leo has already proved that a (fairly simple) reclamation job takes a >>> lot of time and resource. This is for a /8 that no one much wanted and >>> no one much used. >> >> Was that the 14/8 thing? Only 129 individual addresses out of 16777216 >> where used. Maybe just reclaiming the other 16777087 would have been >> more efficient. > >May be. But sorry, you can't enforce it now. You even have no time to >make an implemented in the real life policy that can reclaim any block >before free IP space will be finished. > >So, we have to live with market. Not only because of it. The only we >can do is to make that market white and clear. > >-- >WBR, >Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO) > 'Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com

3 3

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by jwkckid1＠ix.netcom.com 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

Max and all, That's my guess also Max. >;) -----Original Message----- >From: Max Tulyev <president(a)ukraine.su> >Sent: Nov 3, 2007 4:42 PM >To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net >Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) > > >Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >> I'm quickly approaching my posting limit for the day (week?) but I can't >> resist telling you the following story: >> >> I recently found myself somewhere where BitTorrent is severely >> throttled. Although I can download over HTTP at megabytes per second, >> BitTorrent downloads wouldn't go faster than 10 kilobytes per second. >> >> Turns out that the newest Azureus (BitTorrent application) supports >> IPv6. Enabled this and lo and behold: I got about 75 peers, 5 of which >> were IPv6, the rest IPv4. Of the IPv6 peers, one had a regular IPv6 >> address, the other four 6to4 addresses. Even though the 70 IPv4 peers >> could only give me 10 kB/s, the 5 IPv6 peers pushed my download well >> beyond 100 kB/s. > >May be that's just because of your rating in these peering networks? ;) > >-- >WBR, >Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO) > 'Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com

1 0