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

RE: [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD rati o policy proposal
by Koepp, Karsten 12 Jul '05

12 Jul '05

Bonjour Alain, thanks for your reply. Why have you changed the HD value recommended by APNIC and ETNO from 0.966 to 0.96? Using HD of 0.966 APNIC was projecting an increased IPv4 address consumption of 22%. In case of fr.telecom the lower value drives the required address consumption from 58% to 53%. Please explain this change. For others: APNIC: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-ap-hd-ratio. pdf ETNO: http://www.etno.be/pp/EC064%20-%20NANI%20EC%20on%20IPv4%20AD%20ratio.pdf I am personally still not convinced but I have no experience in running such networks as Alain does. regards Karsten > -----Original Message----- > From: BIDRON Alain ROSI/DAS [mailto:alain.bidron@francetelecom.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 10:19 AM > To: Koepp, Karsten; Hans Petter Holen > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD > ratio policy proposal > > > Dear Karsten, > When you manage an X-large registry you have several levels > of management. > In such a situation, meeting the 80% criteria is much more > difficult (if possible) than with a small registry with only > one level. > The proposal is clearly not to advantage or to disadvantage > some registries but simply to take into account in fair way > different situations in order to have enough flexibility for > a better management. > > Regarding the support from the community, I have to mention > that this proposal was considered by ETNO, whose members > representing are a large part of X large registries in the > RIPE region, and unanimously supported. > > You can find this expression for support at > www.etno.be Document EC064. > > Leo Debecker posted this contribution from ETNO to the mailing list. > Be aware that this support comes from the following ETNO members. > This is not one voice but 41. > · Auna Telecomunicaciones > · Belgacom > · BH Telecom (Bosnia and Herzegovina) > · BT (British Telecom) > · BTC (Bulgarian Telecommunications Company) > · Cesky Telecom > · Community of Yugoslav PTT > · Croatian Telecom > · Cyprus Telecommunications Authority > · Deutsche Telekom > · Eircom > · Elion Enterprises Ltd > · Elisa Communications Corporation > · Entreprise des Postes et Télécommunications Luxembourg > · Finnet Group > · France Telecom > · Invitel > · Koninklijke KPN > · Lattelekom > · Makedonski telekomunikacii > · Maltacom > · Matáv Hungarian Telecommunications Company > · Netia S.A. > · OTE > · Portugal Telecom > · Rom Telecom > · Síminn (Iceland Telecom Ltd.) > · Slovak Telecom > · Societatea Nationala de Radiocomunicatii (SNR) > · Swisscom > · TDC > · Tele 2 > · Telecom Italia > · Telefonica > · Telekom Austria > · Telekom Slovenije > · Telekomunikacja Polska > · Telenor > · TeliaSonera > · Türk Telekomünikasyon > · VIPnet > Regards > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net]De la part de Koepp, Karsten > Envoyé : jeudi 7 juillet 2005 12:34 > À : 'Hans Petter Holen' > Cc : address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Objet : RE: [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD > ratio policy proposal > > > Hello Hans Petter and al, > > I am AGAINST the proposal. > > I would like Alain to better explain his need for better IP > address management. He is the only voice I have seen *for* > the proposal. Nobody is supporting Alain, instead Iljitsch > has brought profound comments *against*, and there were some > cynic comments - also *against*. > > From my point of view, I would like to see the current policy > remain in place, because with IPv4 we much more have a conservation > than an aggregation goal (or an internal aggregation need) > Large LIRs already receive /10s and I cannot see the proposal > will have "some limited impact" on address consumption. If > giant LIRs will only be mandated to occupy 52% instead of 80% of > their v4-IPs (I have done this calculation for DTAG and FT), this > is in my view going to cut our resources significantly. > > So, does the new PDP request a counter proposal to maintain > current policy, I guess no, just enough people have to say > no. Also, people in support of the proposal please raise your > hands. > > regards Karsten > eu.lambdanet > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hans Petter Holen [mailto:hpholen@tiscali.no] > > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 12:37 AM > > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > Subject: [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal > #beta HD ratio > > policy proposal > > > > > > Hans Petter Holen wrote: > > Following the discussion on the mailinglist prior to and > > after posting > > the formal proposal I have seen no proposals to modify the > > proposal and > > would like to move the proposal into the conclustion phase in > > the policy > > development process > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/pdp.html > > > > Last cal will end at July 15th. > > > > Best Regards > > > > Hans Petter Holen > > WG Chair > > > > > Thanks Alain, > > > I'll as the new PDP is not in operation yet, I'll add this > > to my list > > > as #beta v1 > > > > > > I propose that we enter into the Discussion phase for 4 > weeks from > > > date until April 4. > > > > > > -hph > > > > > > BIDRON Alain ROSI/DAS wrote: > > > > > >> Dear Colleagues > > >> Referring to the minutes of the last RIPE Policy Working Group > > >> meeting and to the action list as updated during that > > meeting, I have > > >> to make a formal proposal on use of HD ratio for IPV4. > > >> Here is this policy proposal. > > >> In order to be consistent with the PDP Draft proposal > > coming from Rob > > >> Blokzijl I have used the template provided in the new > PDP proposal. > > >> Best regards. > > >> Alain > > >> > > >> > > >> _________________________________________________________ > > >> 1. Policy Proposal Name: IPv4-HD-Ratio > > >> 2. Author > > >> a. name: Alain Bidron > > >> b. e-mail: alain.bidron(a)francetelecom.com > > >> c. telephone: +33 1 44 44 27 75 > > >> d. organisation: France Telecom > > >> 3. Proposal Version: V0 > > >> 4. Submission Date: 02/02/2005 > > >> 5. Suggested WG for discussion and publication: Address Policy WG > > >> 6. Proposal type: modify > > >> 7. Policy term: permanent > > >> 8. Summary of proposal: Internet address space is managed > > >> hierarchically: > > >> - IANA allocates space to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). > > >> - RIRs allocate space to Local Internet Registries (LIRs). > > >> - LIRs assign space to End Users. > > >> > > >> At each level, some address space may be reserved for future > > >> expansion and/or efficient aggregation. As more > > hierarchical levels > > >> are introduced, the overall efficiency of the address > space usage > > >> decreases. > > >> > > >> The HD ratio (Host-Density ratio) is a way to measure > > address space > > >> usage [RFC 3194]. The HD ratio value can relate to a > percentage of > > >> usage, which decreases as the amount of address space > grows. This > > >> allows for the decreasing efficiency that occurs with more > > >> hierarchical levels. > > >> > > >> The HD ratio is currently used to measure IPv6 address > space usage > > >> [ipv6-address-policy]. The IPv6 Address Allocation and > Assignment > > >> Policy considers a block of IPv6 address space to be > > 'used' when its > > >> HD ratio reaches 0.80. This is a manageable figure > > ("values of 80% or > > >> less correspond to comfortable trade-offs between pain and > > >> efficiency" [RFC 3194]). > > >> > > >> This document proposes using the HD ratio to measure IPv4 > > usage. The > > >> proposed value of the HD ratio for IPv4 is 0.96. > > >> > > >> 9. Policy text: > > >> a. Current: "An LIR may receive an additional allocation > > when about > > >> eighty percent (80%) of all the address space currently > > allocated to > > >> it is used in valid assignments or sub-allocations." > > >> b. New: "An LIR may receive an additional allocation when > > its total > > >> allocated address space usage meets the HD-Ratio value of 0.96." > > >> > > >> 10. Rationale: > > >> > > >> a. Background > > >> The current document, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment > > >> Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" [ipv4-address-policy], > > >> considers a block of IPv4 addresses to be 'used' when 80% of the > > >> addresses within the block have been sub-allocated or > > assigned. This > > >> is applied to all address blocks, regardless of size. > > >> Current policies assume a hierarchical system of address space > > >> delegation. However, they do not make any allowance for > > hierarchical > > >> management within allocated address space. For LIRs in > > particular, a > > >> hierarchical approach is often required for assignment > of address > > >> space to service elements such as customer networks, individual > > >> Points of Presence (PoPs), regionalised topologies, and > > even distinct > > >> ISP products. Small network infrastructures may require simple > > >> hierarchies, but large infrastructures can require several > > levels of > > >> address space subdivision. These levels of hierarchy are not > > >> recognised by the current policy framework and are highly > > restricted > > >> by the "80% rule". As a result, managing large blocks is often > > >> difficult, requiring large internal routing tables > and/or frequent > > >> renumbering of internal address blocks. > > >> > > >> One of the goals of the RIR system is to avoid unnecessary > > depletion > > >> of IPv4 address space. However, address management > > policies must also > > >> be practical in terms of how much management overhead > they cause. > > >> When large amounts of address space are involved, the "80% > > rule" can > > >> result in more work for an LIR. > > >> > > >> Basing usage on the HD ratio should lead to equal levels of > > >> management overhead across the board, rather than penalising the > > >> holders of large address blocks. > > >> > > >> b.Impact > > >> To see a rough estimation of the immediate impact of this > > proposal, > > >> an HD Ratio value of 0.96 was applied to the average amount of > > >> address space held by an LIR in the RIPE NCC Service > Region. This > > >> showed that on average, LIRs would qualify for an additional > > >> allocation block when they have assigned or sub-allocated > > about 59% > > >> of their allocated address space. > > >> > > >> c.Arguments supporting the proposal. > > >> This proposal fairly takes into account addressing > > hierarchies used > > >> in large and extra-large registries and introduces a > > useful level of > > >> flexibility for those registries > > >> The local Internet registries using the 80% criteria may > > continue to > > >> do so and will not be impacted by the new policy. > > >> The RIPE NCC will provide support to minimise complicated > > >> calculations or administrative burden to LIRs. > > >> > > >> d. Arguments opposing the proposal. > > >> This proposal will have some limited impact on IPV4 > > address consumption. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Appendix A. The HD ratio > > >> > > >> The HD ratio is calculated as follows [RFC 3194]: > > >> > > >> HD = log(U)/log(S) > > >> > > >> Where: > > >> > > >> S is the size of the address block concerned, and > > U is > > >> the number of addresses used. > > >> > > >> Note: The current IPv4 policy considers addresses to be > > 'used' once > > >> they are assigned or sub-allocated by the LIR. > > >> Appendix B. Selection of HD ratio value > > >> > > >> We should decide an appropriate HD ratio value on a > > rational basis. > > >> To do this, we make certain assumptions about the number > > of "hidden" > > >> hierarchical levels involved in managing address blocks > of various > > >> sizes. If we assume there is 80% usage at each level, we > > can easily > > >> calculate the overall usage. > > >> > > >> The following table proposes a set of hierarchical > levels which we > > >> can reasonably expect within different amounts of address > > space. If a > > >> usage of 80% is achieved at each hierarchical level, then > > the overall > > >> usage will be (0.80 to the power of "n"). It is then possible to > > >> calculate HD ratio values from this value. > > >> > > >> Size range Level Utilisation HD ratio > > >> (prefix) (n) (0.80**n) > (calculated) > > >> /24 to /20 1 80% > > .960 to .973 > > >> /20 to /16 1.5 72% > > .961 to .970 > > >> /16 to /12 2 64% > > .960 to .968 > > >> /12 to /8 2.5 57.2% > > .960 to .966 > > >> /8 to /4 3 51.20% > > .960 to .966 > > >> The levels of hierarchy listed above are based on > assumptions > > >> about the likely size and structure of LIRs holding > > address blocks of > > >> these sizes. A reasonable HD ratio value may be 0.96 (a > > round figure > > >> which occurs within most of these ranges) from the table > > above. The > > >> following table gives the usage requirements for IPv4 > > address blocks > > >> from /24 to /8 for this value. > > >> > > >> IPv4 Addresses Addresses > > Util% > > >> prefix total used > > >> 24 256 > > 205 > > >> 80.11% > > >> 23 512 399 > > 77.92% > > >> 22 1024 776 > > 75.79% > > >> 21 2048 1510 > > 73.71% > > >> 20 4096 2937 > > 71.70% > > >> 19 8192 5713 > > 69.74% > > >> 18 16384 11113 > > 67.83% > > >> 17 32768 21619 > > 65.98% > > >> 16 65536 42055 > > 64.17% > > >> 15 131072 81811 > > 62.42% > > >> 14 262144 159147 > > 60.71% > > >> 13 524288 309590 > > 59.05% > > >> 12 1048576 602249 > > 57.43% > > >> 11 2097152 1171560 > > 55.86% > > >> 10 4194304 2279048 > > 54.34% > > >> 9 8388608 4433455 > > 52.85% > > >> 8 16777216 8624444 > > 51.41% > > >> > > >> Note: This table provides values for CIDR blocks, but the same > > >> calculations can be made for non-CIDR blocks. > > >> > > >> As an example, an LIR holding a total amount of address > > space equal > > >> to a /16 would be able to receive more address space > when they had > > >> sub-allocated or assigned 64.17% of that space; while an > > LIR holding > > >> a /9 would be able to receive more space when they had > > sub-allocated > > >> or assigned 52.85% of their address space. > > >> > > >> Appendix C. References > > >> [RFC 3194] "The Host-Density ratio for address assignment > > efficiency: An > > >> update on the H ratio", A. Durand, C.Huitema, November 2001. > > >> [ipv6-address-policy] RIPE NCC document: "IPv6 Address > > Allocation and > > >> Assignment Policy" > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html > > >> [ipv4-address-policy] RIPE NCC document: "IPv4 Address > > Allocation and > > >> Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" > > >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal #eta : IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy - definition for "End-Site
by Randy Bush 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

> change can be good. recognizing and supporting folks who > want to use IP, regardless of where/if they ever decide to > "connect" to me or my peers is a good thing. businesses > change, AUPs change, networks change. facilitating their > interconnection is highly desirable - even if they wont' > interconnect in the forseeable future. or am i missing something? rfc 1918?

1 0

policy proposal status
by Hans Petter Holen 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

For my own benefit I made a small table of the current proposals and their relevant status: Number Version proposal Author Proposed date Status Next date alpha 1 TLD Anycast Allocation Policy Andreas Baess 04.03.2005 Returned to author beta 1 IPv4-HD-Ratio Alain Bidron 02.02.2004 Last Call 15.jul gamma 1 IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria Andy Furnell 04.04.2005 Returned to author delta epsilon 1 Policy text modifications to take account of ICANN recognition of AfriNIC as a fully functioning RIR. Adiel Akplogan 16.04.2005 Last Call 15.jul zeta 1 Adding Regional Boundaries to policy documents Hans Petter Holen 16.04.2005 Withdrawn by author eta 1 IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy - definition for "End-Site" Eric Schmidt 10.07.2005 Discussion Phase 10.aug There are a couple more proposals in the pipeline: - IPv6 Global policy as prenseted at the last RIPE meeting - Global Policy process in this region (by using the same process as we do for regional policy proposals -hph

1 0

Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
by Hans Petter Holen 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

Dear all, Please find enclosed a policy proposal from Andy Furnell. My proposal is to enter this proposal into the Discussion Phase with a time line of 4 weeks ending on May 9the allowing the discusssion to continue over the RIPE meeting. 1. Number #gamma 2. Policy Proposal Name: IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria 3. Author a. name: Andy Furnell b. e-mail: andy(a)linx.net c. telephone: +44 (0) 20 7645 3519 d. organisation: London Internet Exchange (LINX) 4. Proposal Version: 1 5. Submission Date: 4/4-2005 6. Suggested WG for discussion and publication: Address Policy WG 7. Proposal type: modify a. new, modify, or delete 8. Policy term: renewable a. temporary, permanent, or renewable. 9. Summary of proposal: The proposal is to change the IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria outlined in the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html). The proposed change is to remove "have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two years" and to remove the reference to "/48s" as the assignment size. 10. Policy text a. Current (if modify): 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organisation must: a) be an LIR; b) not be an End Site; c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it will assign /48s by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation; and d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two years. b. New: 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organisation must: a) be an LIR; b) not be an End Site; c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations and customers to which it will make assignments by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation. 11. Rationale: a. Arguments supporting the proposal Many LIRs' networks do not have 200 customers to make assignments to but still maintain autonomous network and addressing policies. These require address space that is both aggregatable and independent from that of their peers. In addition, a /48 assignment is not always appropriate; ISPs might have different plans for the size of the assignments they will make and the policy should not stand as an obstacle for them. Such a change in the policy will also make IPv6 allocations more accessible and could result in the acceleration of IPv6 development. b. Arguments opposing the proposal With such a change in the policy, every LIR operating an autonomous network would be able to receive an IPv6 allocation. The worst case scenario would be a number of allocations equal to the number of LIRs in the RIPE region. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

23 115

Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
by Hans Petter Holen 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

Dear all, Please find enclosed a policy proposal. As per my previous message I will "beta-test" the new PDP on this proposal. The current proposal has been discussed previously and has now been re-formulated after that discussion. My proposal is to enter this proposal into the Discussion Phase with a time line of 2 weeks ending on April 4th. Best Regards, Hans Petter 1.Number (assigned by the RIPE NCC) alpha 2.Policy Proposal Name: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy 3.Author a.name: Andreas Baess b.e-mail: baess(a)denic.de c.telephone: +49 69 27235 0 d.organisation: DENIC e.G. 4.Proposal Version: 1 5.Submission Date: 6.Suggested WG for discussion and publication: Address Policy Working Group 7.Proposal type: new 8.Policy term: renewable 9.Summary of proposal To enable ccTLD and gTLD nameserver operators to provide their DNS service using shared unicast technology, RIPE NCC is able to assign one IPv4 and IPv6 prefix per operator that is not likely to be filtered by common practise for anycast-operation of their DNS services. 10. Policy text a.Current: N/A b.New: "If the nameserverset of a TLD without anycasting technology applied would not pass the IANA Administrative Procedure for Nameserver Delegation and Glue Data (http://www.iana.org/procedures/delegation-data.html) may receive dedicated network prefixes for the sole purpose of anycasting name servers, as described in RFC 3258. These shall be: one /24 IPv4 prefix and/or one /32 IPv6 prefix per operator. The prefixes shall be tagged as 'ASSIGNED ANYCAST' in the RIPE database and MUST be returned to the RIPE NCC if not in use for anycast DNS any longer." 11. Rationale: PROS A. Acceptance of DNS for special treatment Studies like http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-45/presentations/ripe45-eof-rickard.… shows clearly that ccTLD and gTLD nameservers are a critical network infrastructure that justify special policies to guarantee operability of Internet applications. B. Policy Harmonization Three out of four RIRs (APNIC, ARIN and LACNIC) have policies allowing assignments to network critical infrastructure. All three policies classify TLDs as critical infrastructure. Extracts from these policies can be found in Appendices I through III. C. Scalability of DNS To serve the projected increase of DNS queries and to ensure sufficient network topological coverage and diversity TLD managers need to deploy an increasing number of nameservers. D. Resilience Internet has become part of the daily life and their availabilty is as important as the availability of all public services. Anycasting is currently the state-of-the-art solution to lower the impact of DDoS attacks. E. IPv6 Support As the world starts exploiting IPv6, the DNS infrastructure should support IPv6 natively. However it is not yet possible to reduce the number of nameservers in the IPv4 cloud. CONS F. Waste of Address Space Accepting a number of IPv4/24 and IPv6/32 allocations for critical network infrastructures does not align with the traditional address conservation efforts. With anycasting it is very likely that only a few addresses from the entire assignment would be used. 2. Root DNS are special, others are not RIPE document 233 dated from 24th May 2002 says: "Although it is undesirable to give special status to any IP (IPv4 or IPv6) address block, it was agreed by the community that the particular need defined in this document is the only justifiable exception to that general principle." 3. Assigning an own network prefix is just a workaround to ensure global reachability which could also be achieved by adjusting currently deployed route filter practices. Appendix I APNIC Policy (Following section is taken from http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/add-manage-policy.html - 11.3) 11.3 Critical infrastructure The following critical infrastructure networks, if operating in the Asia Pacific region, are eligible to receive a portable assignment: * root domain name system (DNS) server; * global top level domain (gTLD) nameservers; * country code TLD (ccTLDs) nameservers; * IANA; * Regional Internet Registry (RIRs); and * National Internet Registry (NIRs). Assignments to critical infrastructure are available only to the actual operators of the network infrastructure performing such functions. Registrar organisations which do not actually host the network housing the registry infrastructure, will not be eligible for an assignment under this policy. The minimum assignment made under these terms is /24. Appendix II ARIN Policy (Following section taken from http://ww2.arin.net/policy/index.html#four4) 4.4. Micro-allocation - ARIN will make micro-allocations to critical infrastructure providers of the Internet, including public exchange points, core DNS service providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root, gTLD, and ccTLD operators) as well as the RIRs and IANA. These allocations will be no longer than a /24 using IPv4 or a /48 using IPv6. Multiple allocations may be granted in certain situations. Appendix III LACNIC (Following section is taken from http://lacnic.net/policy-en.pdf) 3.3.3 Micro Allocations Micro allocation is the name given to those allocations that imply blocks smaller than /20 but always larger than or equal to /24. LACNIC can grant this type of allocation in case of projects and infrastructure for networks that are key or critical for the region, such as IXPs (Internet Exchange Points), NAPs (Network Access Points), RIRs, ccTLDs, among others. In the case of IXPs or NAPs, in order to be able to apply for this type of allocation, organizations shall meet the following requirements: 1. Duly document the following aspects: 1. 1Prove by means of their bylaws their capacity of IXP or NAP. The organization shall have at least three members and an open policy in relation to the association of new members. 1. 2Submit a company structure organizational diagram. 1. 3Document the numbering plan to be implemented. 2. Provide a usage plan for the following three and six months. The rest of the applications shall be studied based on the analysis of the documentation justifying the critical and/or key aspects of the project. Organizations receiving micro allocations are not authorized to suballocate these addresses.

8 12

RE: [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD rati o policy proposal
by Koepp, Karsten 10 Jul '05

10 Jul '05

Hello Hans Petter and al, I am AGAINST the proposal. I would like Alain to better explain his need for better IP address management. He is the only voice I have seen *for* the proposal. Nobody is supporting Alain, instead Iljitsch has brought profound comments *against*, and there were some cynic comments - also *against*. >From my point of view, I would like to see the current policy remain in place, because with IPv4 we much more have a conservation than an aggregation goal (or an internal aggregation need) Large LIRs already receive /10s and I cannot see the proposal will have "some limited impact" on address consumption. If giant LIRs will only be mandated to occupy 52% instead of 80% of their v4-IPs (I have done this calculation for DTAG and FT), this is in my view going to cut our resources significantly. So, does the new PDP request a counter proposal to maintain current policy, I guess no, just enough people have to say no. Also, people in support of the proposal please raise your hands. regards Karsten eu.lambdanet > -----Original Message----- > From: Hans Petter Holen [mailto:hpholen@tiscali.no] > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 12:37 AM > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] last Call: Policy proposal #beta HD ratio > policy proposal > > > Hans Petter Holen wrote: > Following the discussion on the mailinglist prior to and > after posting > the formal proposal I have seen no proposals to modify the > proposal and > would like to move the proposal into the conclustion phase in > the policy > development process http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/pdp.html > > Last cal will end at July 15th. > > Best Regards > > Hans Petter Holen > WG Chair > > > Thanks Alain, > > I'll as the new PDP is not in operation yet, I'll add this > to my list > > as #beta v1 > > > > I propose that we enter into the Discussion phase for 4 weeks from > > date until April 4. > > > > -hph > > > > BIDRON Alain ROSI/DAS wrote: > > > >> Dear Colleagues > >> Referring to the minutes of the last RIPE Policy Working Group > >> meeting and to the action list as updated during that > meeting, I have > >> to make a formal proposal on use of HD ratio for IPV4. > >> Here is this policy proposal. > >> In order to be consistent with the PDP Draft proposal > coming from Rob > >> Blokzijl I have used the template provided in the new PDP proposal. > >> Best regards. > >> Alain > >> > >> > >> _________________________________________________________ > >> 1. Policy Proposal Name: IPv4-HD-Ratio > >> 2. Author > >> a. name: Alain Bidron > >> b. e-mail: alain.bidron(a)francetelecom.com > >> c. telephone: +33 1 44 44 27 75 > >> d. organisation: France Telecom > >> 3. Proposal Version: V0 > >> 4. Submission Date: 02/02/2005 > >> 5. Suggested WG for discussion and publication: Address Policy WG > >> 6. Proposal type: modify > >> 7. Policy term: permanent > >> 8. Summary of proposal: Internet address space is managed > >> hierarchically: > >> - IANA allocates space to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). > >> - RIRs allocate space to Local Internet Registries (LIRs). > >> - LIRs assign space to End Users. > >> > >> At each level, some address space may be reserved for future > >> expansion and/or efficient aggregation. As more > hierarchical levels > >> are introduced, the overall efficiency of the address space usage > >> decreases. > >> > >> The HD ratio (Host-Density ratio) is a way to measure > address space > >> usage [RFC 3194]. The HD ratio value can relate to a percentage of > >> usage, which decreases as the amount of address space grows. This > >> allows for the decreasing efficiency that occurs with more > >> hierarchical levels. > >> > >> The HD ratio is currently used to measure IPv6 address space usage > >> [ipv6-address-policy]. The IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment > >> Policy considers a block of IPv6 address space to be > used when its > >> HD ratio reaches 0.80. This is a manageable figure > ("values of 80% or > >> less correspond to comfortable trade-offs between pain and > >> efficiency" [RFC 3194]). > >> > >> This document proposes using the HD ratio to measure IPv4 > usage. The > >> proposed value of the HD ratio for IPv4 is 0.96. > >> > >> 9. Policy text: > >> a. Current: "An LIR may receive an additional allocation > when about > >> eighty percent (80%) of all the address space currently > allocated to > >> it is used in valid assignments or sub-allocations." > >> b. New: "An LIR may receive an additional allocation when > its total > >> allocated address space usage meets the HD-Ratio value of 0.96." > >> > >> 10. Rationale: > >> > >> a. Background > >> The current document, IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment > >> Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region [ipv4-address-policy], > >> considers a block of IPv4 addresses to be used when 80% of the > >> addresses within the block have been sub-allocated or > assigned. This > >> is applied to all address blocks, regardless of size. > >> Current policies assume a hierarchical system of address space > >> delegation. However, they do not make any allowance for > hierarchical > >> management within allocated address space. For LIRs in > particular, a > >> hierarchical approach is often required for assignment of address > >> space to service elements such as customer networks, individual > >> Points of Presence (PoPs), regionalised topologies, and > even distinct > >> ISP products. Small network infrastructures may require simple > >> hierarchies, but large infrastructures can require several > levels of > >> address space subdivision. These levels of hierarchy are not > >> recognised by the current policy framework and are highly > restricted > >> by the "80% rule". As a result, managing large blocks is often > >> difficult, requiring large internal routing tables and/or frequent > >> renumbering of internal address blocks. > >> > >> One of the goals of the RIR system is to avoid unnecessary > depletion > >> of IPv4 address space. However, address management > policies must also > >> be practical in terms of how much management overhead they cause. > >> When large amounts of address space are involved, the "80% > rule" can > >> result in more work for an LIR. > >> > >> Basing usage on the HD ratio should lead to equal levels of > >> management overhead across the board, rather than penalising the > >> holders of large address blocks. > >> > >> b.Impact > >> To see a rough estimation of the immediate impact of this > proposal, > >> an HD Ratio value of 0.96 was applied to the average amount of > >> address space held by an LIR in the RIPE NCC Service Region. This > >> showed that on average, LIRs would qualify for an additional > >> allocation block when they have assigned or sub-allocated > about 59% > >> of their allocated address space. > >> > >> c.Arguments supporting the proposal. > >> This proposal fairly takes into account addressing > hierarchies used > >> in large and extra-large registries and introduces a > useful level of > >> flexibility for those registries > >> The local Internet registries using the 80% criteria may > continue to > >> do so and will not be impacted by the new policy. > >> The RIPE NCC will provide support to minimise complicated > >> calculations or administrative burden to LIRs. > >> > >> d. Arguments opposing the proposal. > >> This proposal will have some limited impact on IPV4 > address consumption. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Appendix A. The HD ratio > >> > >> The HD ratio is calculated as follows [RFC 3194]: > >> > >> HD = log(U)/log(S) > >> > >> Where: > >> > >> S is the size of the address block concerned, and > U is > >> the number of addresses used. > >> > >> Note: The current IPv4 policy considers addresses to be > used once > >> they are assigned or sub-allocated by the LIR. > >> Appendix B. Selection of HD ratio value > >> > >> We should decide an appropriate HD ratio value on a > rational basis. > >> To do this, we make certain assumptions about the number > of "hidden" > >> hierarchical levels involved in managing address blocks of various > >> sizes. If we assume there is 80% usage at each level, we > can easily > >> calculate the overall usage. > >> > >> The following table proposes a set of hierarchical levels which we > >> can reasonably expect within different amounts of address > space. If a > >> usage of 80% is achieved at each hierarchical level, then > the overall > >> usage will be (0.80 to the power of "n"). It is then possible to > >> calculate HD ratio values from this value. > >> > >> Size range Level Utilisation HD ratio > >> (prefix) (n) (0.80**n) (calculated) > >> /24 to /20 1 80% > .960 to .973 > >> /20 to /16 1.5 72% > .961 to .970 > >> /16 to /12 2 64% > .960 to .968 > >> /12 to /8 2.5 57.2% > .960 to .966 > >> /8 to /4 3 51.20% > .960 to .966 > >> The levels of hierarchy listed above are based on assumptions > >> about the likely size and structure of LIRs holding > address blocks of > >> these sizes. A reasonable HD ratio value may be 0.96 (a > round figure > >> which occurs within most of these ranges) from the table > above. The > >> following table gives the usage requirements for IPv4 > address blocks > >> from /24 to /8 for this value. > >> > >> IPv4 Addresses Addresses > Util% > >> prefix total used > >> 24 256 > 205 > >> 80.11% > >> 23 512 399 > 77.92% > >> 22 1024 776 > 75.79% > >> 21 2048 1510 > 73.71% > >> 20 4096 2937 > 71.70% > >> 19 8192 5713 > 69.74% > >> 18 16384 11113 > 67.83% > >> 17 32768 21619 > 65.98% > >> 16 65536 42055 > 64.17% > >> 15 131072 81811 > 62.42% > >> 14 262144 159147 > 60.71% > >> 13 524288 309590 > 59.05% > >> 12 1048576 602249 > 57.43% > >> 11 2097152 1171560 > 55.86% > >> 10 4194304 2279048 > 54.34% > >> 9 8388608 4433455 > 52.85% > >> 8 16777216 8624444 > 51.41% > >> > >> Note: This table provides values for CIDR blocks, but the same > >> calculations can be made for non-CIDR blocks. > >> > >> As an example, an LIR holding a total amount of address > space equal > >> to a /16 would be able to receive more address space when they had > >> sub-allocated or assigned 64.17% of that space; while an > LIR holding > >> a /9 would be able to receive more space when they had > sub-allocated > >> or assigned 52.85% of their address space. > >> > >> Appendix C. References > >> [RFC 3194] "The Host-Density ratio for address assignment > efficiency: An > >> update on the H ratio", A. Durand, C.Huitema, November 2001. > >> [ipv6-address-policy] RIPE NCC document: "IPv6 Address > Allocation and > >> Assignment Policy" > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html > >> [ipv4-address-policy] RIPE NCC document: "IPv4 Address > Allocation and > >> Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" > >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html > >> > >> > >> > >

3 2

Minutes from Address Policy WG at RIPE 50
by Hans Petter Holen 10 Jul '05

10 Jul '05

Dear WG members, The Minutes from the last Address Policy Working Group has been available on the RIPE Web Site for a while: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r50-minutes.html Please let me know if you want to have corrections of amendments made to the minutes. Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen Address Policy Working Group Chair

1 0

New IPv4 blocks allocated to the RIPE NCC
by Filiz Yilmaz 05 Jul '05

05 Jul '05

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address ranges 89.0.0.0/8, 90.0.0.0/8 and 91.0.0.0/8 from the IANA in June 2005. We will begin allocating from these ranges in the near future. The longest prefixes to be allocated and assigned from these /8s are as follows: IPv4 Range Longest Prefix 89/8 /21 90/8 /21 91/8 /29 You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. You can find more information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC on our website at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-ncc-managed-address-space.html Kind regards, -- Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC

1 0

Policy Proposal: #epsilon Policy text modifications to take account of,ICANN recognition of AfriNIC as a fully functioning RIR.
by Hans Petter Holen 01 Jul '05

01 Jul '05

Dear All, With the formal recognition of AfriNIC as a fully functioning RIR there is no need to still have special policy provisions for the AfriNIC region in the RIPE NCC region. http://www.nro.net/archive/news/20050411-afrinic-final-recognition.html As I do not expect much discussion on this Item I propose to end the discussion period by May 1st. 1.Number (assigned by the RIPE NCC) #epsilon 2.Policy Proposal Name: Policy text modifications to take account of ICANN recognition of AfriNIC as a fully functioning RIR. 3.Author a.name: Adiel Akplogan b.e-mail: adiel(a)afrinic.net c.telephone:+230 259 2409 d.organisation: AfriNIC 4.Proposal Version: 1.0 5.Submission Date: 6.Suggested WG for discussion and publication Address Policy Working Group 7.Proposal type: modify a.new, modify, or delete. 8.Policy term: renewable a.temporary, permanent, or renewable. 9.Summary of proposal To modify the policy document text to reflect full recognition of AfriNIC as a functioning RIR. 10. Policy text a.Current (if modify): "1.0 Introduction The RIPE NCC is an independent association and serves as one of four Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). Its service region incorporates Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and African countries located north of the equator." b.New: "1.0 Introduction The RIPE NCC is an independent association and serves as one of /five/ Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). Its service region incorporates Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia." a.Current (if modify): "5.1 First Allocation The RIPE NCC's minimum allocation size is /21. The minimum allocation size for countries in Africa is /22." b.New: "5.1 First Allocation The RIPE NCC's minimum allocation size is /21." 11. Rationale: a.Arguments supporting the proposal With the recognition of AfriNIC as a fully functioning and independant RIR there is a need to modify this document reflecting this change. b.Arguments opposing the proposal None.

1 1

HD ratio policy proposal
by BIDRON Alain ROSI/DAS 01 Jul '05

01 Jul '05

Dear Colleagues Referring to the minutes of the last RIPE Policy Working Group meeting and to the action list as updated during that meeting, I have to make a formal proposal on use of HD ratio for IPV4. Here is this policy proposal. In order to be consistent with the PDP Draft proposal coming from Rob Blokzijl I have used the template provided in the new PDP proposal. Best regards. Alain _________________________________________________________ 1. Policy Proposal Name: IPv4-HD-Ratio 2. Author a. name: Alain Bidron b. e-mail: alain.bidron(a)francetelecom.com c. telephone: +33 1 44 44 27 75 d. organisation: France Telecom 3. Proposal Version: V0 4. Submission Date: 02/02/2005 5. Suggested WG for discussion and publication: Address Policy WG 6. Proposal type: modify 7. Policy term: permanent 8. Summary of proposal: Internet address space is managed hierarchically: - IANA allocates space to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). - RIRs allocate space to Local Internet Registries (LIRs). - LIRs assign space to End Users. At each level, some address space may be reserved for future expansion and/or efficient aggregation. As more hierarchical levels are introduced, the overall efficiency of the address space usage decreases. The HD ratio (Host-Density ratio) is a way to measure address space usage [RFC 3194]. The HD ratio value can relate to a percentage of usage, which decreases as the amount of address space grows. This allows for the decreasing efficiency that occurs with more hierarchical levels. The HD ratio is currently used to measure IPv6 address space usage [ipv6-address-policy]. The IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy considers a block of IPv6 address space to be ‘used’ when its HD ratio reaches 0.80. This is a manageable figure ("values of 80% or less correspond to comfortable trade-offs between pain and efficiency" [RFC 3194]). This document proposes using the HD ratio to measure IPv4 usage. The proposed value of the HD ratio for IPv4 is 0.96. 9. Policy text: a. Current: "An LIR may receive an additional allocation when about eighty percent (80%) of all the address space currently allocated to it is used in valid assignments or sub-allocations." b. New: "An LIR may receive an additional allocation when its total allocated address space usage meets the HD-Ratio value of 0.96." 10. Rationale: a. Background The current document, “IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region” [ipv4-address-policy], considers a block of IPv4 addresses to be ‘used’ when 80% of the addresses within the block have been sub-allocated or assigned. This is applied to all address blocks, regardless of size. Current policies assume a hierarchical system of address space delegation. However, they do not make any allowance for hierarchical management within allocated address space. For LIRs in particular, a hierarchical approach is often required for assignment of address space to service elements such as customer networks, individual Points of Presence (PoPs), regionalised topologies, and even distinct ISP products. Small network infrastructures may require simple hierarchies, but large infrastructures can require several levels of address space subdivision. These levels of hierarchy are not recognised by the current policy framework and are highly restricted by the "80% rule". As a result, managing large blocks is often difficult, requiring large internal routing tables and/or frequent renumbering of internal address blocks. One of the goals of the RIR system is to avoid unnecessary depletion of IPv4 address space. However, address management policies must also be practical in terms of how much management overhead they cause. When large amounts of address space are involved, the "80% rule" can result in more work for an LIR. Basing usage on the HD ratio should lead to equal levels of management overhead across the board, rather than penalising the holders of large address blocks. b.Impact To see a rough estimation of the immediate impact of this proposal, an HD Ratio value of 0.96 was applied to the average amount of address space held by an LIR in the RIPE NCC Service Region. This showed that on average, LIRs would qualify for an additional allocation block when they have assigned or sub-allocated about 59% of their allocated address space. c.Arguments supporting the proposal. This proposal fairly takes into account addressing hierarchies used in large and extra-large registries and introduces a useful level of flexibility for those registries The local Internet registries using the 80% criteria may continue to do so and will not be impacted by the new policy. The RIPE NCC will provide support to minimise complicated calculations or administrative burden to LIRs. d. Arguments opposing the proposal. This proposal will have some limited impact on IPV4 address consumption. Appendix A. The HD ratio The HD ratio is calculated as follows [RFC 3194]: HD = log(U)/log(S) Where: S is the size of the address block concerned, and U is the number of addresses used. Note: The current IPv4 policy considers addresses to be ‘used’ once they are assigned or sub-allocated by the LIR. Appendix B. Selection of HD ratio value We should decide an appropriate HD ratio value on a rational basis. To do this, we make certain assumptions about the number of "hidden" hierarchical levels involved in managing address blocks of various sizes. If we assume there is 80% usage at each level, we can easily calculate the overall usage. The following table proposes a set of hierarchical levels which we can reasonably expect within different amounts of address space. If a usage of 80% is achieved at each hierarchical level, then the overall usage will be (0.80 to the power of "n"). It is then possible to calculate HD ratio values from this value. Size range Level Utilisation HD ratio (prefix) (n) (0.80**n) (calculated) /24 to /20 1 80% .960 to .973 /20 to /16 1.5 72% .961 to .970 /16 to /12 2 64% .960 to .968 /12 to /8 2.5 57.2% .960 to .966 /8 to /4 3 51.20% .960 to .966 The levels of hierarchy listed above are based on assumptions about the likely size and structure of LIRs holding address blocks of these sizes. A reasonable HD ratio value may be 0.96 (a round figure which occurs within most of these ranges) from the table above. The following table gives the usage requirements for IPv4 address blocks from /24 to /8 for this value. IPv4 Addresses Addresses Util% prefix total used 24 256 205 80.11% 23 512 399 77.92% 22 1024 776 75.79% 21 2048 1510 73.71% 20 4096 2937 71.70% 19 8192 5713 69.74% 18 16384 11113 67.83% 17 32768 21619 65.98% 16 65536 42055 64.17% 15 131072 81811 62.42% 14 262144 159147 60.71% 13 524288 309590 59.05% 12 1048576 602249 57.43% 11 2097152 1171560 55.86% 10 4194304 2279048 54.34% 9 8388608 4433455 52.85% 8 16777216 8624444 51.41% Note: This table provides values for CIDR blocks, but the same calculations can be made for non-CIDR blocks. As an example, an LIR holding a total amount of address space equal to a /16 would be able to receive more address space when they had sub-allocated or assigned 64.17% of that space; while an LIR holding a /9 would be able to receive more space when they had sub-allocated or assigned 52.85% of their address space. Appendix C. References [RFC 3194] "The Host-Density ratio for address assignment efficiency: An update on the H ratio", A. Durand, C.Huitema, November 2001. [ipv6-address-policy] RIPE NCC document: "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html [ipv4-address-policy] RIPE NCC document: "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv4-policies.html

2 2

Policy Proposal: #Zeta Adding Regional Boundaries to policy documents
by Hans Petter Holen 01 Jul '05

01 Jul '05

Dear Address Policy WG, This policy proposal is nothing more than an editorial change - but we still feel it is fair to run it trough the PDP. As I do not expect much discussion I propose the discussion phase to end by May 1st. While I am voicing this proposal the suggestion actualy comes from our excellent RIPE NCC staff. Thanks leo for pointing this out. Best Regards Hans Petter Holen Address Policy 1. Number Zeta 2. Policy Proposal Name: Adding Regional Boundaries to policy documents 3. Author a. name: Hans Petter Holen b. e-mail: hpholen(a)tiscali.no c. telephone: +47 45066054 d. organisation: Visma IT AS 4. Proposal Version: 5. Submission Date: 16/4-2005 6. Suggested WG for discussion and publication Address policy type 7. Proposal type: a. modify 8. Policy term: a. permanent 9. Summary of proposal Our AS assignment policy has the following statement in it: "The RIPE NCC assigns AS Numbers for Autonomous Systems located in the RIPE NCC service region" Neither the IPv4 nor the IPv6 policy documents have such a clear statement in them. It might be a good idea to add a similar statement to those documents when they are updated. 10. Policy text a. Current (if modify): b. New: 11. Rationale: a. Arguments supporting the proposal Clearification of the scope of the documents b. Arguments opposing the proposal n/a

1 2

NRO Comments on Proposed Review Procedure for ASO Policy Proposals
by Axel Pawlik 22 Jun '05

22 Jun '05

Dear Colleagues, On 17 June 2005, the Number Resource Organization submitted to ICANN their comments to the updated Proposed Review Procedure for ASO Policy Proposals. These comments can be found on the NRO website at: http://www.nro.net/documents/nro25.html The proposed review procedure is available from the ICANN website at: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-31may05.htm Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

Statements to the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)
by Axel Pawlik 16 Jun '05

16 Jun '05

Dear Colleagues, During the fourth Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) Meeting, the Number Resource Organization (NRO) released a statement on the role of ICANN and governments in the management of Internet resources and global technical co-ordination. The original document is on the NRO website at: http://www.nro.net/documents/nro24.html The Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) also submitted a statement on the role of the Regional Internet Registries in global allocation policy. The original document is on the ASO website at: http://www.aso.icann.org/documents/wgig-comments-v31.pdf All other statements submitted to the fourth WGIG Meeting can be found at: http://www.wgig.org/ Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

ICANN Call for Comments on Proposed Review Procedure for ASO Policy Proposals
by Axel Pawlik 06 Jun '05

06 Jun '05

Dear Colleagues, ICANN has called for a second round of public comments on the "Review Procedure to Handle Policy Proposals Submitted by the ASO Address Council in Line with the ASO MoU." Comments received from the first public comment period have been analysed and considered in the updated version of the procedure, which is posted for a second round of public comments on the ICANN website. All members of the Internet community are invited to submit their comments. For further information and to submit comments, please visit the ICANN website at: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-31may05.htm The deadline for comments is 21 June 2005. Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE 50 Report
by Nick Hyrka 25 May '05

25 May '05

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails.] RIPE 50 Report Dear Colleagues, The RIPE 50 Meeting took place from 2 - 6 May 2005 at the Clarion Hotel, Stockholm, Sweden. There were over 375 participants at the meeting. Attendees also included government representatives and representatives from AfriNIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and ICANN. HIGHLIGHTS Highlights of RIPE 50 included: - The successful implementation of the new RIPE Meeting format into three days on operational and technical content followed by two days on policy related issues. - An update on the ICANN ASO Address Council. This presentation is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-plenary-fri-… - A commentary on the ITU-T Proposal for National Address Registries for IPv6 by Geoff Huston, APNIC. This presentation is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-plenary-wed-… - Final discussion on the RIPE Policy Development Process. More information about this will appear on www.ripe.net shortly. Afilias, Arbor Networks, Cisco Systems, Force10 Networks, Netnod, NIKHEF, Nokia, TeliaSonera and the RIPE NCC are thanked for the support they provided to the meeting. TeliaSonera are thanked for the provision of the meeting Internet connectivity. PRESENTATIONS All the Plenary and Working Group presentations from RIPE 50 can be viewed at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/index.html SUMMARY ADDRESS POLICY WORKING GROUP - It was agreed that the Address Policy Working Group Chairs will make a formal proposal that global policies should go through the RIPE Policy Development Process. - There was discussion on the TLD anycast allocation policy proposal, the IPv6 proposal to remove the 200 customers requirement, the proposal for removal of the Africa Special Policy, the proposal to add regional boundaries to policy documents and the IPv4-HD-Ratio proposal. ANTI-SPAM WORKING GROUP - There was discussion on whether ripe-206 should be revised to reflect the updates to the LINX BCP document that was used as the base for the original ripe-206. - There was discussion about anti-spammers sometimes behaving worse than spammers, and action placed on the Working Group Chair to start work on a document for best practise for spam complaints. DATABASE WORKING GROUP - It was agreed that a proposal on the "country:" attribute should be prepared. This will be done by the RIPE NCC. - It was noted that changes to the RIPE Database for abuse are now in production. DNS WORKING GROUP - It was agreed that the DNS Working Group Chair will produce a proposal to solve the problem that changes to reverse DNS nameservers cannot have multiple names. - There was discussion on whether the DNS Working Group should take over the work to produce a RIPE Document on AAAA resolution issues. - It was agreed that the RIPE NCC will produce statistics on anycast placement for K-root and the RIPE region Hostcount in time for RIPE 51. - It was noted that DNSSEC RFCs have been published, and that DNSSEC is being tested in Sweden in the .se domain. EIX WORKING GROUP - It was noted that the Switching Wish-List Version 3.0 will be published soon by Mike Hughes, and that version 3.1 will be published after RIPE 51. - There was discussion about public versus private peering. ENUM WORKING GROUP - It was agreed that Niall O'Reilly and Carsten Schiefner will be the new ENUM Working Group Chairs. - It was noted that the IETF is continuing work on ENUM standards. - It was agreed that the ENUM Working Group will continue to work as it has in the past, with an emphasis on the exchange of operational experience. IPV6 WORKING GROUP - It was decided that the RIPE Whois Database will continue to include more services that run in native IPv6. - It was agreed that the community needs to produce a revised Internet draft before RIPE 51 to formally address the demands of RFC3177, particularly the /48 recommendation. - It was noted that the IPv6 Working Group needs to decide where it wishes to house the new, operational IPv6 mailing list. RIPE NCC SERVICES WORKING GROUP - There was discussion on the value of the Hostcount. It was agreed that the RIPE NCC should continue working on this, and that the RIPE NCC should write and put a new Hostcount into service. ROUTING WORKING GROUP - There was discussion on route flap damping and de-aggregation practices raised by Philip Smith in the RIPE 50 Plenary. - Lorenzo Colliti (RIPE NCC) presented the research work of Roma Tre University on active BGP probing to discover AS level topology of the Internet. TEST TRAFFIC WORKING GROUP - It was agreed that the community should provide a proposal on how TTM infrastructure could be used to certify the quality of service provided by ISPs and to verify Service Level Agreements. - Henk Uijterwaal gave an update on the status of the TTM project - Thomas Wana presented work done to improve the accuracy of TTM time measurements and a proposal to create even greater accuracy by using DAG cards for measurement. - There was discussion on the future directions for the TTM project and it was agreed that the TTM infrastructure and measurements could be leveraged to certify the quality of service provided by ISPs. The Working Group agreed that the RIPE NCC, as a trusted third party, could perform the measurements and publish the results. CO-LOCATED PEERING BoF Netnod, LINX and AMS-IX hosted a peering BoF co-located at RIPE 50 on Sunday, 1 May, where peering policies were presented. CO-LOCATED LOBSTER TUTORIAL A tutorial entitled "Passive Network Traffic Monitoring" was organised on Friday, 6 May, by the consortium of LOBSTER, a European IST Project on Large-Scale Monitoring of Broadband Internet Infrastructures. RIPE 50 WEBCASTING AND ARCHIVES During RIPE 50, the RIPE NCC collected feedback from participants watching the webcast and listening to the audiocasts. The mediums used for this were IRC and Jabber. Archives of presentations, webcasts and IRC/Jabber feedback from RIPE 50 are available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/sessions-archive.html HOSTMASTER CONSULTATION CENTRE (HCC) The RIPE NCC Hostmaster Consultation Centre was open at RIPE 50, allowing RIPE NCC Members to discuss issues relating to their business directly with RIPE NCC Hostmasters. "MEET & GREET" The RIPE NCC's "Meet & Greet" was available for first-time RIPE Meeting attendees at RIPE 50. "Meet & Greet" introduces newcomers to the meetings, to key attendees from the RIPE community and to social events throughout the week. More information can be obtained by contacting <meet-greet(a)ripe.net>. RIPE 50 REFERENCE PAGE A complete list of RIPE 50 sessions, tutorials and presentations can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50 RIPE 51 RIPE 51 will be held in Amsterdam, the Netherlands from 10 - 14 October 2005. Information on RIPE 51 is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-51 If you have any questions about RIPE Meetings, please contact <meeting(a)ripe.net>.

2 1

IPv4 allocation monitoring tool
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 23 May '05

23 May '05

Hi, I've been looking at the IPv4 allocations lately, in order to figure out how soon we're going to run out. I made a little tool to search the data in different ways: http://www.bgpexpert.com/addrspace.php It doesn't do anything fancy: just collect the public stats from the different RIR FTP servers once in a while and dump the records in a database, which can then be searched with the page above, with results such as: RIR Country Addresses Date 78.51 M 2000 89.02 M 2001 69.02 M 2002 87.67 M 2003 123.93 M 2004 79.86 M 2005 Another interesting one: RIR Country Addresses Date US 1305.90 M JP 138.33 M EU 114.01 M Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. Iljitsch van Beijnum

2 1

RIPE DB: disclosure of commertial information
by Max Tulyev 20 May '05

20 May '05

Hi! I have very strange situation. One company I support, an ISP, wants to become a LIR. But they do not want to put information about their clients' assignments into the RIPE DB, because of there is a possibility to steal clients (most of them - major clients) using RIPE DB, and they says that there already was some incidents. Really, you can see RIPE DB for assignments of LIR to have its client list with name of organisation, size (larger client have larger assignment), address, phone, fax, email, and even administrative and technical contact persons. Only you need to do - is to send (or even talk with) better offer addressing it to certain people... What do you think about it? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

13 19

Allocation transfer
by David Bell 16 May '05

16 May '05

Hi all, uk.redwing is a small LIR, providing internet via satellite. We are in the process of hosting a new satellite platform, on behalf of another organisation, that is projecting a requirement for a /19 in the next 12 months. This partner is not currently an LIR, but is considering it as a future option. What I am trying to determine is if uk.redwing applies for this /19 address block, and assigns it as PA space, will it be possible in the future for us to hand it over to our partner, if/when they become an LIR themselves. Perhaps this is a case where PI addresses would be suitable, but I see warnings everywhere I look regarding the use of PI space. My apologies if this is not the correct place to post this question, please let me know the best place to go if I'm on the wrong list. Thanks very much, Dave Bell Redwing Satellite Solutions Ltd.

4 3

WGIG Questionnaire & Forum on Internet Governance
by Axel Pawlik 13 May '05

13 May '05

Dear Colleagues, This is an invitation and an opportunity to provide input directly into the current discussions on Internet Governance. The UN's Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) is conducting a survey to ask stakeholders for their thoughts on current Internet Governance arrangements. The questionnaire is available on the WGIG website at: http://www.wgig.org/docs/Questionnaire.09.05.05.pdf An online discussion forum has also been established. Instructions on how to access the forum and complete the questionnaire can be found at: http://www.wgig.org/Plone-instructions.html I would like to encourage you to take a few minutes to respond to this survey. As a stakeholder in Internet governance, and in IP address management in particular, your input is important and will be valued by the WGIG. Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

Correction: Call for Comments on Revised ICANN Strategic Plan
by Axel Pawlik 10 May '05

10 May '05

Dear Colleagues, Some of you may have noticed two URLs in our last announcement. The correct URL is: http://www.icann.org/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-v7_3.pdf Apologies for the confusion. Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

Call for Comments on Revised ICANN Strategic Plan
by Axel Pawlik 10 May '05

10 May '05

Dear Colleagues, The ICANN Strategic Plan has been revised. The comment period will be open until 13 May 2005 at 23:59 UTC. The revised Strategic Plan is available as a draft for public comment at: <http://www.icann.org/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-16nov04.pdf>http://www.icann.org/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-v7_3.pdf We encourage you to review the ICANN Strategic Plan document and send any comments you have to: <stratplan-revision(a)icann.org>. Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

infected e mails
by freeram 06 May '05

06 May '05

I receive infected e mails of these addresses is it possible to ascend has the author of its mails: or have I to address to send complaints thank you of well will to reply me Alain Bruneteau ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62.48.149.242 Return-Path: <info(a)sivaonline.pt> Delivered-To: online.fr-freeram(a)free.fr Received: (qmail 9962 invoked from network); 6 May 2005 10:41:25 -0000 Received: from adsl-62-48-149-242.ptprime.net (HELO tetfob.pt) (62.48.149.242) by mrelay2-2.free.fr with SMTP; 6 May 2005 10:41:25 -0000 From: info(a)sivaonline.pt To: Recipient(a)free.fr Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 09:52:45 UTC Subject: [avast! - INFECTED] Your email was blocked Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <56cd.70f8e0dab9d7ee0(a)sivaonline.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===79bce1635598.2ceab3bf964" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a multi-part message in MIME format. X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0518-4, 06/05/2005), Inbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Infected Attachment: \error-mail_info.zip#1997431942 Virus: Win32:Sober-N [Wrm] Deleted ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 82.64.236.212 X-x: TimeOut+OK 73580 octets Return-Path: <hostmaster(a)yahoo.fr> Delivered-To: online.fr-freeram(a)free.fr Received: (qmail 12725 invoked from network); 5 May 2005 06:17:15 -0000 Received: from lns-th2-15-poi-82-64-236-212.adsl.proxad.net (HELO butqay.fr) (82.64.236.212) by mrelay3-2.free.fr with SMTP; 5 May 2005 06:17:15 -0000 From: hostmaster(a)yahoo.fr To: mailhost(a)free.fr Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 06:09:40 UTC Subject: [avast! - INFECTED] mailing error Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <74d8c001e683ef48(a)yahoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="6653bc9b707531bc.8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a multi-part message in MIME format. X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0518-3, 04/05/2005), Inbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Infected Attachment: \mail_info.zip#1997431942 Virus: Win32:Sober-N [Wrm] Deleted --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 82-64-238-162 Return-Path: <Admin(a)ac-corse.fr> Delivered-To: online.fr-freeram(a)free.fr Received: (qmail 17762 invoked from network); 4 May 2005 05:53:29 -0000 Received: from lns-th2-15-poi-82-64-238-162.adsl.proxad.net (HELO hnmuwxt.fr) (82.64.238.162) by mrelay1-2.free.fr with SMTP; 4 May 2005 05:53:29 -0000 From: Admin(a)ac-corse.fr To: fe2e2ec0(a)free.fr Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 05:45:09 GMT Subject: [avast! - INFECTED] mailing error Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-ID: <db2da62ab.587e8a2c9(a)ac-corse.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====8389c8.dea2bff67" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a multi-part message in MIME format. X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0518-2, 04/05/2005), Inbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Infected Attachment: \error-mail_info.zip#1997431942 Virus: Win32:Sober-N [Wrm] Deleted ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 82.64.226.163 Return-Path: <service(a)ac-reims.fr> Delivered-To: online.fr-freeram(a)free.fr Received: (qmail 7819 invoked from network); 4 May 2005 23:00:38 -0000 Received: from lns-th2-15-poi-82-64-226-163.adsl.proxad.net (HELO osymwmxh.fr) (82.64.226.163) by mrelay2-1.free.fr with SMTP; 4 May 2005 23:00:38 -0000 From: service(a)ac-reims.fr To: oel(a)free.fr Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 23:00:06 GMT Subject: FwD: Registration Confirmation Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-ID: <f24f8b.dc6bb7cddd(a)ac-reims.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="==eb445d.b2cfb65" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

1 0

Revised Agenda v2 for Address Policy WG @ RIPE 50 Thursday 5th May
by Hans Petter Holen 05 May '05

05 May '05

Time: 1400- 15:30 Date: Tursday May 5th Place: Main room, RIPE 50 A. Administrative Matters - Welcome - Select a scribe - Distribute participants list - Finalise agenda - Approve minutes from RIPE 49: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r49-minutes.html B. Policy overview - Regional policy overview -- presentation of the status of the current regional proposals under the "beta test of the PDP" -- status of the PDP and transition to the PDP --- PDP last call posted to ripe-list with closing date May 10th. C. Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy Discussion phase until: May 6th D. Policy proposal: #beta: IPv4-HD-Ratio Discussion phase until: April 4th E. Policy proposal: #gamma: IPv6 remove 200 customer requirement Discussion phase until May: 9th F. Policy Proposal: #epsilon: Removal of Africa Special Policy Discussion phase until May: 1st G. Policy Proposal: #zeta: Adding Regional Boundaries to Policy Documents Discussion phase until May: 1st H. Discussion: (IPv6) HD ratio consequences (Geoff Huston: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-plenary-wed-… There is also a related agenda item in the IPv6 WG on friday: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ipv6-wg/2005/msg00042.html " D. Revisiting the /48 recommendation (Thomas Narten) Discussion, read rfc3177 as preparation ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3177.txt" J. Report from the Address Council - Hans Petter Holen K. Any other Business

1 1

New Draft Document: RIPE Whois Registration in 2005: What should be in Whois and Why?
by leo vegoda 02 May '05

02 May '05

Dear Colleagues, At RIPE 49, Eva Ericsson Rabete (TeliaSonera) made a presentation to the Address Policy Working Group in which she asked some questions about the state of the RIPE Whois Database. Following the discussion at the meeting, Eva was asked to take the discussion onto this list (Action Point 49.4). A draft document discussing the uses of the RIPE Whois Database, and detailing questions to consider, has been published in the "Latest Draft Documents" section of the RIPE Document Store. The purpose of this draft document is to encourage discussion about what elements should be in the Whois Database and why they should be there. This draft document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/whois2005.html Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

2 1

Summary TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
by Patrick Arkley 28 Apr '05

28 Apr '05

Hi WG. We at MCI are requesting a /24 PI-range to use for an anycast service (DNS) but the request has been rejected in accordance to the current assignment policy. We need PI-space belonging to a separate AS so we can't use existing MCI space. The need for this range is if course routing reasons which is prohibited by the policy. I've been reading Andreas Baess e-mail on this issue and I hope this issue will be addressed on the RIPE 50 and rule in favour of changing the policy. I don't judge on the routability aspects but more on the fact that we need a change in the policy to accomodate a setup for anycast services. Myself I can't attend the WG meeting on Thursday 5/5 due to other engagements so this e-mail is my support for the proposal. Best regards Patrick Arkley Supervisor IP/DNS-team SKSC/SKRC MCI - Powered by UUNET Armégatan 38 S-171 04 Solna, Sweden Web: www.se.mci.com <http://www.se.mci.com/> Phone direct: +46 (0)8 5661 7075 Fax: +46 (0)8 5661 7236 Mobile: +46 (0)733 11 20 75 VNET: 915-7075 E-mail: patrick.arkley(a)se.mci.com <mailto:patrick.arkley@se.mci.com>

1 0