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

2005-02 Proposal Accepted (IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS)
by Filiz Yilmaz 25 Sep '06

25 Sep '06

PDP Number: 2005-02 IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2005-02 has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-2.html Two policy documents were affected by this proposal and now are updated and published: IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region, ripe-387 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html and IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy, ripe-388 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html Thank you for your input. We also noticed an error in the previous IPv4 policy document, ripe-368. In 2004, utilisation requirements to receive a first allocation were dropped and the document was updated accordingly. However, a reference to this changed policy was overlooked in this previous update: 5.4 Sub-allocations: ... Downstream network operators efficiently using a /22 sub-allocation qualify to receive a /20 PA allocation from the RIPE NCC if they decide to become an LIR themselves. ... We also removed this out of date reference from the document in ripe-387. We apologise for any confusion. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

RIPE NCC NRO Number Council Candidates Announced
by Paul Rendek 21 Sep '06

21 Sep '06

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, The following candidates have accepted their nomination for the vacant seat on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council (NC) from the RIPE NCC service region: * Sabine Jaume Rajaonia * Dave Wilson The term of Sabine Jaume, who was elected in January 2004, expires in December 2006. The representative appointed by the Internet community for the NRO NC seat will serve a three-year term, beginning 1 January 2007. Candidate profiles and information on how to submit an Expression of Support can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2006/confirmed-nominations.html Voting will take place during the RIPE NCC Services Working Group session of the RIPE 53 Meeting in Amsterdam. This session takes place at 16:00 - 17:00 on Thursday 5 October, 2006. Note: this is a change from the previously published date. The successful candidate will be announced during this meeting. For more information about the NRO NC, nominations and the election process, see: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2006/ Regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services & Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

2006-05 / PI Assignment Size - brief address wastage analysis
by Nick Hilliard 18 Sep '06

18 Sep '06

As of yesterday, there were ~18000 ASSIGNED PI netblocks in the RIPE DB, comprising a mixture of recently assigned PI blocks, and a bunch of older network blocks from the days when RIPE used to allocate /16's without too much justification. Of these 18000 blocks, about: 850 are < /24 10285 are /24 (2.5% of ASSIGNED PI space in RIPE) 2650 are /23 1650 are /22 2550 are > /22 (94.3% of ASSIGNED PI space in RIPE) >From a cursory glance, it would appear that a bunch of these assignments are misregistered or are subregistrations of other old ASSIGNED PI blocks. Particularly notable are the NRENs and the older ISPs, which would have been allocated large blocks a long time ago. These blocks are now classified as ASSIGNED PI instead of ASSIGNED PA. Much of this IP address space is aggregated in the routing tables and does not present much cause for worry from that perspective. Given that there are only ~850 assignments < /24, it would seem reasonable to assume that 2006-05 will cause only a very marginal increase in the amount of address space used for PI announcements. Therefore there seems little reason to reject the proposal because of address space wastage. Yes, a small amount of address space will be wasted, but in the grand scheme of things, very little. Nick

1 0

DRAFT agenda for RIPE 53 address policy WG meeting
by Gert Doering 15 Sep '06

15 Sep '06

Hi APWG folks, here's a first draft of an agenda for the RIPE53 address policy meeting in Amsterdam in two weeks. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday afternoon, October 5, 2006, 14:00-15:30 local time. The overall RIPE meeting outline is available at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/meeting-plan.html The list of plenary presentations scheduled may become available at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-53/presentations/ (empty right now) Please send me your comments pretty quickly, as we need to hand in the agenda for printing fairly soon. Gert Doering -- APWG Co-Chair --------------------------- snip ------------------------- A. Administrative Matters - Welcome - Select a scribe - Distribute participants list - Finalise agenda - Approve minutes from RIPE 52: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r52-minutes.html <if you have any comments on the minutes, please let me/the list know> - point people to mailing list B. finding of a new APWG Chair / new Co-Chair(s) - Hans-Petter Holen is proposing to step down as WG chair (and become a co-chair) due to high work load / little spare time - Andrea Borgato seems to have fallen off the net --> volunteers welcome! C. ongoing/current address policy proposals in the RIPE region * 2005-02 - IP Assignments for anycasting DNS * 2005-08 - amend IPv6 assignment and utilization requirement * 2005-12 - 4-byte AS number policy * 2006-01 - Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 assigmnets for end users * 2006-02 - IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy * 2006-04 - Contact e-mail Address Requirements * 2006-05 - (IPv4) PI Assignment Size * 2006-06 - IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period (misleading title) * 2006-07 - Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window the idea is to have a presentation by Filiz Yilmaz from the RIPE NCC (thanks!) in the plenary session on Wednesday, and discussions about individual proposals in the working group session on Thursday. For the most recent policy proposals, I think it would be a good idea to have a very brief presentation from the proposer, explaining the rationale behind the proposal. D. Update on global IANA/ICANN policies * IPv6 ICANN->RIR distribution policy update E. ongoing policy work in other regions * presentation in the plenary * plus discussion time in the WG slot Z. AOB -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 88685 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234

1 0

ICANN Ratifies Global Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Address Space
by Axel Pawlik 12 Sep '06

12 Sep '06

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails.] Dear Colleagues, Please find below an announcement on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 7 September 2006, the ICANN Board ratified the Global Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Address Space. This policy provides for the allocation of IPv6 address space from ICANN to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). On 13 July 2006, the Secretary of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Address Council (AC) forwarded to ICANN the proposed global policy for allocation of IPv6 address space. This proposed global policy had been submitted to the ASO AC by the Executive Council of the Number Resource Organization on 6 June 2006, and adopted by the ASO AC on 12 July 2006. Each RIR community individually discussed the policy and approved its adoption via their own policy development processes. The Global Addressing Policy document is available from the ASO website at: http://aso.icann.org/docs/aso-global-ipv6.pdf The ICANN announcement is available from the ICANN website at: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-11sep06.htm nro-announce mailing list information: nro-announce(a)nro.net https://www.nro.net/nro-lists/listinfo/nro-announce ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

Re:2006-06 New Policy Proposal (IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period)]
by Jeroen Massar 12 Sep '06

12 Sep '06

Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2006-06 IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period The subject of this proposal sounds a *lot* like: "The maximum period that an IPv4 prefix will be allocated to the LIR" while instead is meant (what I read from the rest of the text and taunted some others with who also read it differently ;) : "The maximum period over which we will ask the LIR to foresee the future developments and requests that it will make" Thus the subject is sort of misleading, maybe a better naming would be: "2006-06 Maximum Period used in Determination of New IPv4 Allocations" but I'll leave the exact wording to be filled in by the rest of the APWG members. One extra note, in case RIPE at a certain point accepts one of the "IPv6 PI" proposals, then the above might be applicable to those too. For the rest, the proposal sounds good to me, especially in light of making policies more equal globally. Greets, Jeroen

1 0

Urgent: NRO NC Nominations
by Paul Rendek 01 Sep '06

01 Sep '06

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails.] Dear Colleagues, During the process of collecting nominations for the available seat on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council (NC), we experienced problems with incoming e-mail to nominations(a)ripe.net. Unfortunately, this may have resulted in the loss of some nominations and supporting e-mails. If you have sent a nomination or a supporting e-mail to nominations(a)ripe.net, please check to see if it is listed at: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2006/confirmed-nominations.html ============================================================================================================================ * If you do not see your nomination or supporting e-mail on the web page mentioned above, please re-send it as soon a possible to: nominations(a)ripe.net * ============================================================================================================================ For more information about the NRO NC election process, please see: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2006/ We apologise for any inconvenience caused. Kind regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services & Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

[info@arin.net: [arin-announce] NRPM version 2006.2 - New Policy Implementations]
by David Kessens 31 Aug '06

31 Aug '06

For your information. Please post followups regarding these policy changes to the address policy working group only. David Kessens --- ----- Forwarded message from Member Services <info(a)arin.net> ----- Delivered-To: arin-announce(a)lists.arin.net From: Member Services <info(a)arin.net> To: ARIN Announce <arin-announce(a)arin.net>, "'Public Policy Mailing List'" <ppml(a)arin.net> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:22:07 -0400 Subject: [arin-announce] NRPM version 2006.2 - New Policy Implementations Reply-To: info(a)arin.net On 9 May 2006, the ARIN Board of Trustees, based on the recommendation of the Advisory Council and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process had been followed, adopted the following policy proposals: 2005-1: Provider-independent IPv6 Assignments for End Sites 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement 2005-9: 4-Byte AS Number These policy proposals have been incorporated into version 2006.2 of the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) which is effective 30 August 2006. NRPM version 2006.2 supersedes previous versions. See Appendix A of the NRPM for information regarding changes to the manual. The NRPM can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html Appendix A can be found at: http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm_changelog.html On 11 July 2006, the ARIN Board of Trustees added IPv6 Assignments to the ARIN fee schedule. The Board waived all but $500 of the IPv6 Initial Assignment fee through 31 December 2007. The fee schedule can be found at: http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html For information about requesting an IPv6 assignment, please see the guidelines at: http://www.arin.net/registration/guidelines/ipv6_assignment.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ ARIN-announce mailing list ARIN-announce(a)arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce "To Unsubscribe,<mailto:arin-announce-request@arin.net?subject=unsubscribe>." ----- End forwarded message -----

3 2

New IPv4 blocks allocated to RIPE NCC
by leo vegoda 31 Aug '06

31 Aug '06

[Apologies for duplicate mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address ranges 77.0.0.0/8 and 78.0.0.0/7 from the IANA in August 2006. We will begin allocating from these ranges in the near future. The minimum allocation size for these four /8s has been set at /21. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our web site at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-ncc-managed-address-space.html Additionally, please note that two "pilot" prefixes are being announced from each /8. Details of the prefixes, 'pingable' target names and addresses for each prefix can be found on our web site at: http://www.ris.ripe.net/debogon/debogon.html Best regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 1

Fwd: Last Call: 'BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes)
by Henk Uijterwaal 29 Aug '06

29 Aug '06

For those interested in PDP 2005-12... >Begin forwarded message: > >>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary(a)ietf.org> >>Date: August 28, 2006 10:01:15 PM GMT+02:00 >>To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce(a)ietf.org> >>Cc: idr(a)ietf.org >>Subject: Last Call: 'BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space' >>to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes) >>Reply-To: iesg(a)ietf.org >> >>The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG to >>consider the following document: >> >>- 'BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space ' >> <draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-12.txt> as a Proposed Standard >> >>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >>final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the >>iesg(a)ietf.org or ietf(a)ietf.org mailing lists by 2006-09-12. >> >>The file can be obtained via >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-12.txt >> >>The implementation report can be obtained via >>http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/bgp4_impleme.txt >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>IETF-Announce mailing list >>IETF-Announce(a)ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > >----------------------------------------------------------- >Olaf M. Kolkman >NLnet Labs >http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1160438400 + 381600 = 1160820000.

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2006-04 New Policy Proposal (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)
by Koepp, Karsten 29 Aug '06

29 Aug '06

Hi Michele, I also support the goal of the proposal although I believe it will be hard to enforce. > Several ISPs maintain abuse email addresses, but when you submit abuse > reports to the supplied address they send an auto-responder > forcing you to > resubmit the data via a web form. > Think the other way around. 99% of your abuse inbox is spam itself. And people just forward spam to abuse contacts to complain. How can you make sure serious mails are being detected within the junk. A web form is just a measure to make sure abuse complaints reach people and are being dealt with. It is not overdemanded to fill in a form if you ask someone to spend working time solving your problem. YMMV. regards Karsten > What is the RIPE policy on this? > > Surely ISPs should not be making it hard for users / admins > etc., to report > abuse to them > > Regards > > Michele > > > Michele > http://www.mneylon.com/blog/ > http://www.searchenginecookbook.com/ > http://www.irishblogs.info - top Irish blogs/bloggers >

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] Proposal for change to the IPv4 PI allocation policy
by Max Tulyev 28 Aug '06

28 Aug '06

Hi, I warn all my clients that PI (and any kind of their own) address space and/or AS is also a great responsibility. And they sure need a more qualified system administrator to rule it. If client asks for a help ("the Internet doesn't work") and rejects in help with doing some tests from its side - I say I can't help you in that case, goodbye. It is true as well for PI as for PA. Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 11:57:39PM +0400, Max Tulyev wrote: >> Gert Doering wrote: >>> With PA, you can debug from *your* network - with customer's PI, you >>> can't (normally) run probes (traceroute, ping) from *their* IP addresses >>> - and if your PA works, but their PI is filtered, this makes it harder >>> to debug. >> PI means that it is *not* your network administratively and technically. >> If customer have PI and AS - it is an independent part of Internet, and, >> in fact, not your just customer in usual terms. You don't go debug for >> example your downstream's and peer's networks as your, isn't it? > > You need to distinguish between "customers with their own network block, > their own AS number, BGP speaking routers, multiple upstreams, and local > clue" and "customers that want PI space because they don't want to > renumber when they change upstreams". > > The latter sort will want *you* to announce their PI for them, and if > there are any routing problems, yell at you because "the Internet doesn't > work". > > I have no issues with the former sort, especially when there is enough > local clue present. > >>> Furthermore, /24s tend to be damped more quickly and for longer times >>> than /16... >> Again, why? ;) > > Because flap dampening recommendations said so... > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

1 0

Re: [policy-announce] 2006-04 New Policy Proposal (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)
by Jeff Scribner 25 Aug '06

25 Aug '06

Michele, The original proposal provided for enforcement. That part was removed because it crosses into another area of responsibility. However, if the proposal is adopted and then violated, another proposal could be made providing for enforcement. At least that is my understanding of the situation. You might note that I made this proposal because our security department was running into e-mail addresses that didn't work, were missing or directed one to a web site. All of these results dramatically increase the time required to report abuse of an IP address. If the proposal is adopted, I think there will be a lot of people and organizations interested in enforcement. Regards, Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: Michele Neylon To: Jeff Scribner Cc: hph(a)oslo.net ; Filiz Yilmaz ; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 19:50 Subject: Re: [policy-announce] 2006-04 New Policy Proposal (Contact e-mail Address Requirements) Jeff Scribner wrote: > Michele, > > The proposal as written should cover this. The requirement is for a > working e-mail address that will accept messages - not one that will > direct you to a web site. > > Regards, > > Jeff > > Jeff that's fair enough, but what if the Ripe member ignores the policy? Is there any recourse? Michele -- http://www.mneylon.com/blog http://www.irishwebmasterforum.com/ http://www.armchair.ie/

2 1

Re: [policy-announce] 2006-04 New Policy Proposal (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)
by Jeff Scribner 25 Aug '06

25 Aug '06

Michele, The proposal as written should cover this. The requirement is for a working e-mail address that will accept messages - not one that will direct you to a web site. Regards, Jeff From: Michele To: filiz(a)ripe.net ; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Cc: 'Jeffrey L. Scribner' ; 'Hans Petter Holen' Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 08:32 Subject: RE: [policy-announce] 2006-04 New Policy Proposal (Contact e-mail Address Requirements) One question I have about this: "Every organisation controlling an IP address should provide at least one working contact e-mail address where notifications of abuse emanating from that IP address can be sent." Several ISPs maintain abuse email addresses, but when you submit abuse reports to the supplied address they send an auto-responder forcing you to resubmit the data via a web form. What is the RIPE policy on this? Surely ISPs should not be making it hard for users / admins etc., to report abuse to them Regards Michele Michele http://www.mneylon.com/blog/ http://www.searchenginecookbook.com/ http://www.irishblogs.info - top Irish blogs/bloggers

2 1

2006-04 New Policy Proposal (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)
by Filiz Yilmaz 24 Aug '06

24 Aug '06

PDP Number: 2006-04 Contact e-mail Address Requirements Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This proposal suggests that working and up-to-date contact e-mail addresses should be maintained at all times for address space that is registered in the RIPE Database. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-04.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 20 September 2006. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

5 4

2005-02 Last Call for Comments (IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS)
by Filiz Yilmaz 23 Aug '06

23 Aug '06

PDP Number: 2005-02 IP Assignments for anycasting DNS Dear Colleagues The proposal described in 2005-02 is now in its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-2.html During the review phase, we received feedback that suggested improvements to the text: - The resulting policy text should explicitly state that it is for ccTLDs and gTLDs - The text should explicitly state that the RIPE NCC will make assignments directly when a request is submitted through an existing LIR. We have incorporated this in the draft documents that you can find at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-02-draft.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-02-v6-draft.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 September 2006. If we receive no objections, we will publish the new policy after this date. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

3 3

Proposal for change to the IPv4 PI allocation policy
by Mikael Abrahamsson 23 Aug '06

23 Aug '06

Hello. Following a discussion between some people and the resulting request to bring the discussion here I would like to propose a change to allocation policy for small PI blocks. Today it's a problem that the ISP industry BCP involves filtering all announcements smaller than /24 from BGP, this meaning that a smaller allocation from RIPE is pretty much unusual in the "real world" if you want to be on the public internet. I would therefore like to see a discussion about making it an option to actually get a /24 for routing reasons, disregarding current policy of disallowing routing problems as justification to request an allocation bigger than you might be able to justify from address usage alone. I know I ran into this problem when I first started in the ISP business around 1995, and it's still there, so might it be time to change? People with enough experience will creatively "enhance" (ie lie) address requests to actually reach the /24 size today, and people without experience will make an honest request and then run into practical problems with their newly allocated space when they want to use it in real life, due to it being filtered because it's too small according to industry BCP. This is of course a bad situation either way and I hope it can be rectified. Thanks for your attention. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se

6 9

[jeffc@surbl.org: Re: RIPE policy proposal on contact e-mail addresses]
by md＠Linux.IT 23 Aug '06

23 Aug '06

----- Forwarded message from Jeff Chan <jeffc(a)surbl.org> ----- From: Jeff Chan <jeffc(a)surbl.org> Reply-To: Jeff Chan <jeffc(a)surbl.org> Organization: SURBL To: Marco d'Itri <md(a)Linux.IT> Subject: Re: RIPE policy proposal on contact e-mail addresses Wednesday, August 23, 2006, 5:41:25 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote: > Summary of Proposal: > This proposal suggests that working and up-to-date contact e-mail > addresses should be maintained at all times for address space that is > registered in the RIPE Database. > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-04.html > If you want to argue for or against it please post to the address-policy > WG mailing list. Hello Marco, I don't have access to that list so could you relay my comments that current and accurate contact info should be required and that lack thereof should be possible grounds for de-allocation, depeering, disconnection, etc. Many of the most abusive spam gangs use completely fraudulent and broken contact info. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- ciao, Marco

1 0

2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 2 October 2006 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
by Filiz Yilmaz 21 Aug '06

21 Aug '06

PDP Number: 2006-01 Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations and PDP Number: 2006-02 IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy Dear Colleagues The Discussion Period for proposals 2006-01 and 2006-02 has been extended until 2 October 2006 2006-01 is intended to provide a solution for organisations that need IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) assignments and 2006-02 is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria, the End Site definition and assignment of multiple /48s to a single End Site as outlined in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy". You can find the full proposals at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html and http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

2005-12 Last Call for Comments (4-Byte AS Number Policy)
by Filiz Yilmaz 21 Aug '06

21 Aug '06

PDP Number: 2005-12 4-Byte AS Number Policy Dear Colleagues The proposal described in 2005-12 is now at its final stage. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-12.html and the draft documents at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-12-draft.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 September 2006. We will publish the new policy after this date if we receive no objections. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

Second Call For Nominations for NRO Number Council Seat 2006
by Paul Rendek 09 Aug '06

09 Aug '06

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, This is a second call for nominations from the RIPE NCC service region to fill one vacant seat on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council (NC). The term of Sabine Jaume, who was elected in January 2004, expires in December 2006. The representative appointed by the Internet community for the NRO NC seat will serve a three-year term, beginning 1 January 2007. For more information about the NRO NC, nominations and the election process, see: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2006/ Nominations can be sent to: nominations(a)ripe.net ========================================================================== Deadline for nominations: 4 September, 2006 Elections: 4 October, 2006, at the RIPE 53 Meeting, Amsterdam, the Netherlands =========================================================================== Regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services & Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

Fw: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
by Ian.Meikle＠nominet.org.uk 28 Jul '06

28 Jul '06

Hi, Both of these proposals change the onus on an LIR from having "... a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two years." to having "... a plan for making at least 200 assignments to other organisations within two years." While this increases flexibility it still has an arbritrary feel to it. Why 200 assignments? I can see that this is meant to prevent the numberspace becoming too fractured, so reducing the size of the routing table. However, I worry that it may have the side effect of imposing a hierarchy of ISPs within IPv6 that does not meet the requirements of smaller organisations. It seems there is little interest at present within the larger UK-based ISPs in providing IPv6, (with the exception of NTT-Verio), and this change won't affect that. Is there a better way to encourage the uptake of IPv6 without preventing exponential routing table growth? Ian ----- Forwarded by Ian Meikle/Nominet on 27/07/06 15:53 ----- Filiz Yilmaz <filiz(a)ripe.net> Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net 27/07/06 12:42 Please respond to filiz(a)ripe.net To policy-announce(a)ripe.net cc Hans Petter Holen <hph(a)oslo.net>, Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis(a)kurtis.pp.se>, Geoff Huston <gih(a)apnic.net>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy) PDP Number: 2005-08 Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy Dear Colleagues As you might remember, it was decided during RIPE 51 that the proposal described in 2005-08, "Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy" should be split into two parts. Accordingly, we have published two draft documents. You can find the draft documents at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-08-56s.html defining allocation efficiency measurement unit as /56 and http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-08-hd-ratio.html changing the HD ratio value to 0.94 You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 24 August 2006. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

4 6

2005-08 New Draft Documentis Published (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
by Filiz Yilmaz 27 Jul '06

27 Jul '06

PDP Number: 2005-08 Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy Dear Colleagues As you might remember, it was decided during RIPE 51 that the proposal described in 2005-08, "Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy" should be split into two parts. Accordingly, we have published two draft documents. You can find the draft documents at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-08-56s.html defining allocation efficiency measurement unit as /56 and http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2005-08-hd-ratio.html changing the HD ratio value to 0.94 You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 24 August 2006. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

Call For Nominations for NRO Number Council Seat 2006
by Paul Rendek 25 Jul '06

25 Jul '06

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, This is a call for nominations from the RIPE NCC service region to fill one vacant seat on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council (NC). The term of Sabine Jaume, who was elected in January 2004, expires in December 2006. Due to an administrative error, this call for nominations is issued after the prescribed 90-day pre-election period as suggested in the NRO NC election process. We are confident that we will secure qualified candidates within the remaining time. The representative appointed by the Internet community for the NRO NC seat will serve a three-year term, beginning 1 January 2007. ========================================================================== Deadline for nominations: 4 September, 2006 Elections: 4 October, 2006, at the RIPE 53 Meeting, Amsterdam, the Netherlands =========================================================================== For more information about the NRO NC, nominations and the election process, see: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2006/ Regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services & Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

91.192/10 to be used for PI assignments to End Users
by leo vegoda 10 Jul '06

10 Jul '06

Dear Colleagues, At recent RIPE Meetings, we have reported a steady rise in requests from our members for Provider Independent (PI) address space for End User networks. We have reclaimed and recycled space from closed Local Internet Registries to meet this demand, but we are nearing the point where the available PI space will run out. In the past, we made PI assignments from former Class C space (193/8 and 194/7). Because of the increasing demand for PI space, we made sure that we would be able to use some of our most recent allocation of address space to meet future requests. We have designated 91.192/10 for PI assignments to End User networks. When the former Class C space is exhausted, we will start to make PI assignments from 91.192/10. We will let you know when this happens. We are announcing a pilot prefix using the RIS beacons, you may want to update any filters that you have in place. The RIS beacons are announcing the following networks: 91.192.0.0/24 91.192.0.0/16 You can ping 91.192.0.1. Full details of reachable IP addresses and tools are available on our web site at: http://www.ris.ripe.net/debogon/debogon.html Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

2 2