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

2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation"
by James Blessing 21 Nov '11

21 Nov '11

Hi all, It seems that the consensus is that up to a /29 is the right amount of space for the majority of networks, if that is the case I've think we should add the following: == 5.1.x Organisations that have already received their initial allocations are able to request additional address space up to a /29 without supplying of further documentation as if they were a first time requestor. == The logic being that this solves the problem for networks who deployed before this change and avoids the issues with HD ratio (which I think needs some looking at, but not here) J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

25 39

proposal 2011-04, proposal 2011-05, concept document: IPv6 PA/PI unification, intransparent ip-eaters
by chrish＠consol.net 15 Nov '11

15 Nov '11

Hi! I see there's broad support for the 2011-05 proposal - by an overwhelming majority of IXP people... There also seems to be broad support for the 2011-04 proposal - I can't really say for sure, but probably by an overwhelming majority of 6RD people... So my 2 cent as some non-IXP non-6RD guy: - I think IXPs should get the IPs they need. That is, just like everyone else. No special treatment. So in 2011-05's sense: 'no'. - I think people who want to use 6RD should get the IPs they need (that includes space for a reasonable 'decent setup' not just the 'minimum space to make it work'). That is, just like everyone else. No special treatment. As 2011-04 doesn't treat 6RD special, that would be ok in this sense - but also superfluous. If $organisation submits documentation reasonably justifying the need for a /29 (like "we do 6RD"), I don't see where the current version of 5.1.2 doesn't already allow what 2011-04 wants to achieve. That's why I'd say 'no' to 2011-04 while at the same time I'd appreciate giving /29 to people who need it for their 6RD setup. Also, I believe 5.2 already allows the same (/29 for 6RD), and I see no need to add a specific paragraph under 5.1 (while I think there might be potential (but not necessarily a need, imho) to make 5.2 more defined and concise). - I am totally a fan of KISS (errm - and btw I expand that to "...small and simple", not "...simple, stupid" ;), and this explicitly and specifically includes policies. I'd therefore generally abstain from putting more specific cases or redundancy than absolutely necessary into policy. In the thread up to now, I didn't see anything that made it clear to me why making IXPs (and/or 6RD) special cases is necessary (or even legitimate). There have been arguments as to lots of IXPs are noncommercial, commercial and noncommercial IXPs cannot be distinguished from each other, and they're all 'good', so they all should be special. I think that's wrong in every way: most IXPs are commercial, it's easy to identify whether an IXP is commercial or noncommercial (on the given examples to illustrate how difficult it is: these three were clearly all commercial), and 'IXPs are good for everybody' is not much different to saying 'starting work at 6am is good for everybody'. Let's not start making some things more equal than others. Well and in case somebody wants to fill up the 'Arguments opposing' paragraph - wouldn't be wrong, I'd say... Following the same rationale, on Gert's concept on "IPs are IPs, IP users are IP users.": while true; do echo -n +; done I really like this! (Except maybe for the 'special case' range - I'd suggest to just skip that, too. Better let's just say "Every IP is special."... There was an example mentioned like $usual_suspect wants another /2, as they do regularly, and as $rir hasn't got sufficient insight into their net design, they just get it. This might be a bit exaggerated ;) - but I think it describes a major existing problem, which really needs to be addressed. In the end it reads to me: The request isn't sufficiently justified. It just shouldn't be approved, in this case - until justified. A huge part of the address space (v4) obviously suffered this kind of problem since ages - and on the so called IPv4-depletion: just by 'cleaning up' some of the existing insane allocations, the 'problem' would disintegrate into thin air (and it might be used as another means to promote v6, btw). I even consider this a moral obligation for anything assuming the role of coordinating the IP commons. I believe we have a really pressing issue here. Regards, Chris

1 0

Update in the Policy Proposal Archive for Proposal 2009-01, "Global Policy for Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries"
by Emilio Madaio 15 Nov '11

15 Nov '11

Dear colleagues, As announced at RIPE 63, we will add an explanatory note to the status of policy proposal 2009-01 "Global Policy for Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries", as approved by the RIPE community in August 2010. The note reads: "In October 2010, ICANN announced that the NRO deemed the global policy proposal abandoned due to differences in the global proposal texts among the RIRs. This proposal, although regionally accepted, will never be globally implemented." The ICANN announcement is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12may09-en.htm An archive of all RIPE policy proposals is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/archived-policy-proposals Kind regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
by Dan Luedtke 10 Nov '11

10 Nov '11

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Turchanyi Geza <turchanyi.geza(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 1, Most of the content must be accessible on IPv6 stack as well; > 2, Broadband users must be supported. Never questioned that. But, that is no reason to stay in the way of those who *want* to deploy IPv6 but cannot get their hands on addresses. It is just not ok, that a RIPE policy is preventing deployment in some networks while we are pushing large ISP to deploy it. We should push *all* parties to deploy it. It's not only the ISPs internet, although they are a/the force of it. As I understood, the other RIRs have not encountered a pollution problem when allowing PI assignments without multihome-requirement. But I may be wrong on this, as I have no numbers were I am right now. regards, Dan -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de

1 0

Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
by DI. Thomas Schallar 09 Nov '11

09 Nov '11

Hello! What ist the current status on the multihomed v6 PI topic? regards, Thomas

32 70

Re: [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
by Albert Siersema 09 Nov '11

09 Nov '11

Geza, > I do see it differently. PI address space is easy to use, however, this > allocation mechanism does not scale. Therefore was invented CIDR and PA > allocation, if you do remember... Could you eleborate on "does not scale" ? When deploying IPv6 one should set aside an IPv4 mindset. The same goes for the whole rehashing of the "does not scale" issue. You can't expect early 90's routing hardware to do the job of current BGP Internet routing. And when everyone will be running IPv6 (not tomorrow), the current limits for hardware won't apply. Let's not go into a discussion on asics / 64-core cpu's, but I'm pretty certain that hardware including tcams etc will keep up if the market demands it. Maybe you're referring to something altogether different, that's why I ask. I fully concur with Thomas on this point: for all the IPv4 PI allocations out there it should be possible to get an IPv6 allocation as well. Indeed nothing has changed with regard to the reasons for applying and being granted PI space. The current policy kind of suggests that everyone with IPv4 PI space should just quit their business and hand it over to the LIR as they are the only ones getting PI space for customer traffic. Regards, Albert > Turchanyi Geza schrieb am 07.11.2011 10:02: > nothing stops th IPv4 PI owners to use IPv6 PA.... > > > Nothing stops anybody of using PA, neither in IPv4 nor in v6. That's not > the question. > > But any reasons, why somebody wants/needs IPv4 PI space will usually fully > apply to IPv6 also. It would seem stupid to me, to have IPv4 ("the past") > as PI but IPv6 ("the future") as PA. That won't make sense. What changed > between my v4 PI application and my v6 PI application? If I won't need PI > on v6 any more, I probably won't need it on v4 any longer. > > Siple question: do I need my machines to have provider independend IP > addresses or not? If yes, then I need *ANY* address (IPv4, IPv6, > IPvSomething) to be PI and not PA. > > So, if somebody already has IPv4 PI space, he/she should more or less > automatically receive v6 PI under the same conditions as for v4. He/she > just has to reason, why some default /48 won't be enough. Thats my opinion. > > regards, > Thomas

7 8

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Anfinsen, Ragnar 08 Nov '11

08 Nov '11

Late, but anyway. We support this proposal. MVH/Regards Ragnar > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > bounces(a)ripe.net] På vegne av Emilio Madaio > Sendt: 21. oktober 2011 12:45 > Til: policy-announce(a)ripe.net > Kopi: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Emne: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the > Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) > > > Dear Colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 18 November 2011. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC >

4 4

6rd as technology that might have an impact to HD ratio
by Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si 05 Nov '11

05 Nov '11

Hi, During last week the question was risen "what do we do, if we get /29, assign /30 for 6rd, use /30 for native part of deployment, then we fill it up and need additional allocation? Is 6RD /30 assignment valid as a whole in HD ratio game?" Well, my thoughts on this are: 1. If you filled up the whole /30, then you should probably not be running 6RD anymore, get rid of it and use that space for native 2. If you filled up /30 and can't get rid of 6RD, evaluate again you addressing plan sanity :) 3. If nothing of the above does apply, you are probably so big you should get more than /29 as initial allocation anyway 4. What else can possibly go wrong? So, 6RD should not be treated as anything special, as it is not a part of modified text in the policy, therefore if you are running 6RD, you still need to show the number of sites that you are covering with IPv6 PD and this has really nothing to do with 2011-04 proposal (but I can see new HD ratio discussion in the horizon :) ) I was specifically asked to put this question forward on this mailinglist in order to provide some further guidance for IPRAs, if 2011-04 reaches consensus (hope so :) ) Cheers, Jan

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by boggits 05 Nov '11

05 Nov '11

On 21 October 2011 11:44, Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 Okay, I can see the logic, but please can we not do this :) I'm all for allowing a policy that says LIR can request a /29 rather than a /32 and that deploying 6rd is a valid reason for allocating a /29 as an initial block but can we do this by having the LIR send the documentation in and having it reviewed for logic. J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

15 41

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Daniel Holme 02 Nov '11

02 Nov '11

On 21 October 2011 12:44, Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 18 November 2011. Hi On the premises that there are no protocol specific comments in the policy then I support this proposal too. This should be a matter of address assignment policy only. Based on a mixture of /56 and /48 assignments to users it's easily possible for a medium to large ISP to need more than a /32. Also, increasing allocation sizes can only do good things for the IPv6 DFZ. -- Daniel Holme

1 0