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

RIPE NCC Services
by Chris Hallam 13 Aug '03

13 Aug '03

Stephen Burley wrote: All of which the NCC do well and should be commended, anything else is surplus to requirement there is one other thing the NCC has never done and never fully justified and that is a help desk you can talk to. Other RIR's do it. I think it helps cut away the sterile faceless image and lets you see what you are getting for your money - discuss === I think the inclusion of a telephone help desk service would benefit a lot of members. I imagine it would be difficult to implement due to the number of bilingual staff that would be required. This would therefore require substantial funding which would probably affect member fees. In addition, most of the actual processes would have to remain based on the email system. Even so, if the operational scope was clearly defined it would be useful for help, advice, and a reliable point of contact. Chris ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. **********************************************************************

1 0

English Language (was: Summary of the PI Task Force's recent discussions)
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 12 Aug '03

12 Aug '03

>People are requesting *multiple* PI blocks because they can't get a PA >allocation, and that seems to be just wrong to me. Something strange is happening to the English language here. Whenever I read PI and PA, I have a mental concept of independent blocks that I can announce, and borrowed blocks that I get from my provider's aggregate. In this set of mental concepts, a provider gets a PI block from an RIR and then allocates PA blocks to their customers. But after stumbling through this thread, I checked the RIPE website and discovered that the IPv4 policies state: LIRs are allocated Provider Aggregatable address space that they assign to their End Users and announced as one prefix. The problem is that the word "aggretable" means something that is capable of being aggregated. The block that a customer receives from the LIR is a part of a larger aggregate and is therefore "aggregatable". But the block that the LIR receives from the RIR is not necessarily aggregatable because there is no guarantee that the RIR will reserve adjacent blocks for the LIR. I know that the practice is to reserve the adjacent blocks for some period of time, but there are a lot of LIRs which have multiple non-aggregatable blocks from the RIRs. This is important because if we are not clear and consistent in our use of the language, then we create confusion and misunderstandings. For instance, in the ARIN world, PA stands for Provider Assigned in order to make it clear that the RIR gives providers PI space and the providers cut it up into PA blocks for their customers. It's like lending and borrowing. If I lend you a bicycle then you are borrowing it from me. Then you can lend the borrowed bicycle to your friend so that you are both a borrower and a lender of the bicycle. It seems to me that the distinction needs to be made between network-independent address blocks and network-dependent or network-attached ones. NI Network-Independent address blocks are allocated to an organization by the RIR and can be announced in whole or in part by any network with which the organization has a relationship. NA Network-Attached address blocks are assigned to an organization by an LIR and can only be used with the network(s) operated by that LIR. Then we could drop the acronyms and start talking about independent address blocks and attached network blocks. Personally, I don't believe that all 5 RIRs should have the same policies but I do believe that all 5 RIRs should use the same terminology and language to talk about addressing as long as the talking is done in English. --Michael Dillon

2 1

AW: [address-policy-wg] Summary of the PI Task Force's recent dis cussions
by Marcus.Ruchti＠colt.de 11 Aug '03

11 Aug '03

so how should we connect multihomed customers?? a majority of the ISP's won't announce PA space of another AS. rgds, Marcus Ruchti COLT Telecom GmbH -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Joao Luis Silva Damas [mailto:joao@psg.com] Gesendet am: Montag, 11. August 2003 11:48 An: Address Policy WG Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Summary of the PI Task Force's recent discussions I have one question, trying to understand the main goal of the exercise: * Is the aim of the a new PI policy to adjust the policy to the requests and needs of the industry or is it a way of getting a "special allocation" policy by another name? Joao On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 10:29 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 08:19:46AM +0200, > leo vegoda <leo(a)ripe.net> wrote > a message of 91 lines which said: > >> 3. No longer assign PI (Portable) address space to End Users >> >> - There some support for to this point. The issue of Root DNS >> Servers was raised but it was noted that all Root DNS Servers >> operating in this region already have address assignments. > > And what about ccTLD name servers? > >

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Summary of the PI Task Force's recent discussions
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 11 Aug '03

11 Aug '03

Gert, On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 11:50 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 11:48:28AM +0200, Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote: >> I have one question, trying to understand the main goal of the >> exercise: >> >> * Is the aim of the a new PI policy to adjust the policy to the >> requests and needs of the industry or is it a way of getting a >> "special >> allocation" policy by another name? > > My aim is to adjust the policy (actually both PA and PI policy) to > match > observed need. > That is good. > People are requesting *multiple* PI blocks because they can't get a PA > allocation, and that seems to be just wrong to me. > Just to spell it out clearly: - Is it people who do not meet the minimum allocation size for PA? I guess these ones would ask for a single PI assignment? - Is it people who find it to be so much hassle to get an allocation that they end up requesting multiple PI blocks with the same amount of addresses? - People who have multiple sites and if they get a normal PA block will need to split it and end up with a bunch of non-routable sites? Other? Just trying to understand. One last thing. There is something that makes it unusually attractive to have PI space: it usually comes from "old" blocks (192/8, 193-195/8) where you don't have to bother with anyone filtering you if you have at least a /24 (damn easy to justify). Joao

1 0

Updated 'RIR Comparative Policy Overview' - Version 2.1
by leo vegoda 07 Aug '03

07 Aug '03

Dear Colleagues, Version 2.0 of the 'RIR Comparative Policy Overview', found at: <http://www.ripe.net/rs/rir-comp-matrix-rev.html> has been updated to correct an error in the information for LACNIC in Section 2.4.1. "Assignments by RIRs (Independent/Portable)" To be eligible for an independent/portable assignment from LACNIC, the corrected text now reads: "Show need for at least a /21, based on demonstrated need, according to the criteria listed above." the old text read: "Need to be multihomed and show need for at least a /21. Based on demonstrated need, according to the criteria listed above." Please accept our apologies for any confusion or inconvenience caused. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager

1 0

Re: [Fwd: [address-policy-wg] Draft agenda Address Policy Working Group RIPE 46]
by leo vegoda 07 Aug '03

07 Aug '03

Hi, Shane Kerr <shane(a)ripe.net> wrote: >Did we want "status:" added? It sort of comes under the policy as it is specified there, too. Regards, -leo >-----Original message----- >Subject: [address-policy-wg] Draft agenda Address Policy Working Group RIPE 46 >To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net >From: Hans Petter Holen <hpholen(a)tiscali.no> >Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 01:39:45 -0100 > >Dear WG; > >Here are some items for a draft agenda, please send me comments as soon as >possible; > > >- wg-charter >- policy process >- PI policy >- initial IPv4 allocation size >- RIR- IANA relationship and procedures >- RIPE-152 Charging by local registries >- Final revised IPv4 policy > > > >-----End of original message from Hans Petter Holen----- -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager

1 0