IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meeting network
Dear Colleagues, This is an informal submission of the proposal that was presented at RIPE 57 in Dubai (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-57/presentations/Robachevsky-IPv6_ass...), as was suggested by the community. Your feedback is appreciated as well as your opinion whether a formal submission should follow. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC IPv6 address space assignment for RIPE Meetings --------------------------------------- A dedicated IPv6 prefix is assigned to the organisation that organises the RIPE Meetings. The size of this prefix is a /48 and the assignment will be valid as long as the organisation is responsible for organising the RIPE Meetings and the usage of the prefix is limited to RIPE Meeting networks. The status of this assignment will be 'ASSIGNED MEETING’ in the RIPE Database and must be returned to the RIPE NCC if not in use for RIPE Meeting networks. Rationale: -------- a. Arguments supporting the proposal RIPE NCC has been organising RIPE Meetings for over a decade now and it is still responsible for the setup of the meeting network. As IPv6 deployment has became more of a necessity, the RIPE NCC has been providing IPv6 network during RIPE Meetings too. Although first couple of setups were more at an experimental level, currently we offer this as a production-grade service to the attendees. The IPv6 space for these networks so far has been provided by some other organisations and so the assignments were in temporary nature. We appreciate the support these organisations have provided so far. Today a permanent IPv6 prefix is a necessity to be able to provide a stable and high quality service during RIPE Meetings. Having such a permanent and dedicated prefix, the RIPE Meeting Team of the RIPE NCC will be able to design and test the RIPE meeting network beforehand, which will ensure stable operation of the IPv6 network during the RIPE Meetings. This will also allow the team to have complete control over the network to effectively address issues related to security, redundancy and setting efficient routing policies with third parties. The proposal is worded in a way that the IPv6 prefix will be provided to the RIPE Meeting organiser. This is to ensure that the prefix will stay with the meeting organiser for the sole usage in RIPE meetings. This means if the RIPE NCC ceases being the RIPE Meeting organiser in the future, the prefix will be returned to the free pool. The reason for the size being set to a /48 is about routing reasons. Because this is the minimum excepted routable assignment size that is common among all regions, we think a prefix in this size will guarantee connectivity during RIPE Meetings. b. Arguments opposing the proposal Some may argue that this will cause waste of address space because the prefix will be only in use effectively during RIPE meeting
[nasty email following, partially nice at the end] Andrei Robachevsky wrote: [..]
IPv6 address space assignment for RIPE Meetings ---------------------------------------
A dedicated IPv6 prefix is assigned to the organisation that organises the RIPE Meetings. The size of this prefix is a /48 and the assignment will be valid as long as the organisation is responsible for organising the RIPE Meetings and the usage of the prefix is limited to RIPE Meeting networks.
The status of this assignment will be 'ASSIGNED MEETING’ in the RIPE Database and must be returned to the RIPE NCC if not in use for RIPE Meeting networks.
Wow, that will really make RIPE special wouldn't it? A special status, just for RIPE. How much time will the Database team need to fix that up in the code of the whois server, and how many external tools need to be updated to handle that special status? [..]
Today a permanent IPv6 prefix is a necessity to be able to provide a stable and high quality service during RIPE Meetings.
You mean to say that the networks where RIPE meetings was making use of before where unstable and of bad quality?
Having such a permanent and dedicated prefix, the RIPE Meeting Team of the RIPE NCC will be able to design and test the RIPE meeting network beforehand,
Which is of course not possible when I tell you several months in advance (I guess you need to book hotels, meeting rooms etc way in advance thus you know where you are going to) that your prefix is going to be 2001:db8:b4d:1dea::/48* that you can't "test" with that?
which will ensure stable operation of the IPv6 network during the RIPE Meetings. This will also allow the team to have complete control over the network to effectively address issues related to security,
Because you can't firewall on another prefix nor can the /48 be properly entered in the RIPE db so that it contains proper contact info.
redundancy and setting efficient routing policies with third parties.
because you just want to fill up the routing table with /48's... And people will have to punch a special hole in their prefix filters for this exact prefix all of a sudden. Wow that really makes you special. It seems to me that RIPE NCC is making this big case for "IPv6 PI", wonderful.
The proposal is worded in a way that the IPv6 prefix will be provided to the RIPE Meeting organiser. This is to ensure that the prefix will stay with the meeting organiser for the sole usage in RIPE meetings. This means if the RIPE NCC ceases being the RIPE Meeting organiser in the future, the prefix will be returned to the free pool.
(I guess you would mean that if the "Meeting Organiser" changes that the prefix would go to the new one, and when "RIPE meetings" end that the prefix will be returned to the free pool)
The reason for the size being set to a /48 is about routing reasons.
I thought that prefixes where allocated based on address space need. Though a /48 is of course a site, which makes it the minimum allocation size, which would be more or less a valid reason, still it isn't.
Because this is the minimum excepted routable assignment size that is common among all regions, we think a prefix in this size will guarantee connectivity during RIPE Meetings.
Non-sense, if your prefix is worthy enough (aka the content or you pay them enough) people will route it, whatever the size it is.
b. Arguments opposing the proposal
Some may argue that this will cause waste of address space because the prefix will be only in use effectively during RIPE meeting
And what about every other "meeting", I tend to have "meetings" at my home, you know "Whisky Meetings", can I get a special free PI block for that too. More seriously, will this also work for IETF, CCC, What The Hack, LanPartyXYZ, etc etc etc. Most of these setup their network a week in advance, as they also need to do a lot of other things to get things working properly, maybe that is the way to go for RIPE meetings? Thus, if there is going to be a 'meeting policy' then it should be well defined and very generic and also allow every other "Meeting" to make use of it, even if the event is a one-timer. And as we have End-user/LIR payment now, somebody has to foot the bill for them too. Greets, Jeroen * = too many bits in network on purpose
Jeroen, thank you for your comments, I think it is important that we agree on the main idea. That's why this proposal was send to the wg for informal discussion, rather then submitted to the PDP. Jeroen Massar wrote on 19-11-2008 14:39: [...]
Thus, if there is going to be a 'meeting policy' then it should be well defined and very generic and also allow every other "Meeting" to make use of it, even if the event is a one-timer. And as we have End-user/LIR payment now, somebody has to foot the bill for them too.
Whether that is going to be a meeting policy, or as Remco suggested a RIPE NCC policy, or just a policy to document that specific assignment is equally fine by me. I leave this to people more experienced in the policy area. Our objective is to get a permanent dedicated assignment for a community meeting. This is not unusual, for example IETF got such assignment from APNIC.
Greets, Jeroen
* = too many bits in network on purpose
Regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC
Hi Andrei, community, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
Jeroen, thank you for your comments,
I think it is important that we agree on the main idea.
Before trying to make up my mind in favour or against, I think we need a better understanding (definition) of responsibilities and activities. After a very rough reading, there seems to be a mixture of - the NCC as (currently) being responsible for the setup of meetings - the local host and/or connectivity provider - the NCC as an RIR. My first approach would be having the NCC (as the party responsible) talk to the NCC (the RIR) and tag a particular prefix with transient, for (RIPE) Meetings. As soon as the planning for the next meeting starts, it should be easy to assign that prefix to either the local host or the connectivty provider for the (virtual) site RIPE Meeting. Everything else, like who operates the network, who announces the prefix, who does the <whatever> is then an internal issue. After the meeting ends, the prefix goes back to the pool (with the label to not be given away for other things :-) ) Only when and if some services should remain accessible beyond the end of the meeting, we should think about a (formally) permanent solution. Even then, those services might better be found in the regular NCC's address space between meetings?
That's why this proposal was send to the wg for informal discussion, rather then submitted to the PDP.
Thanks, Wilfried (wearing a similar hat like Remco does, incidentally).
Jeroen Massar wrote on 19-11-2008 14:39: [...]
Thus, if there is going to be a 'meeting policy' then it should be well defined and very generic and also allow every other "Meeting" to make use of it, even if the event is a one-timer. And as we have End-user/LIR payment now, somebody has to foot the bill for them too.
Whether that is going to be a meeting policy, or as Remco suggested a RIPE NCC policy, or just a policy to document that specific assignment is equally fine by me. I leave this to people more experienced in the policy area.
Our objective is to get a permanent dedicated assignment for a community meeting. This is not unusual, for example IETF got such assignment from APNIC.
Greets, Jeroen
* = too many bits in network on purpose
Regards,
Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC
Dear Andrei, all, While I appreciate what you're getting at, I'd prefer a more general proposal for 'resources for the NCC'. As any resource allocated to the NCC can be perceived as a conflict between the NCC and ALL of its members (the resources won't be available for them :) I'd suggest that we create a policy that lets the NCC file a request in the ordinary way and then have a few members of the NCC arbiter pool evaluate that request, sitting in the chair of the hostmasters^Wresource analysts. Since the NCC is the only party that can't sign a contract with the NCC, it stands to reason that we have something in place to handle this. Best, Remco van Mook (incidentally one of those arbiters)
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andrei Robachevsky Sent: woensdag 19 november 2008 14:10 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meeting network
Dear Colleagues,
This is an informal submission of the proposal that was presented at RIPE 57 in Dubai (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-57/presentations/Robac hevsky-IPv6_assignment_for_RIPE_meeting_network.pdf), as was suggested by the community.
Your feedback is appreciated as well as your opinion whether a formal submission should follow.
Regards,
Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC
IPv6 address space assignment for RIPE Meetings ---------------------------------------
A dedicated IPv6 prefix is assigned to the organisation that organises the RIPE Meetings. The size of this prefix is a /48 and the assignment will be valid as long as the organisation is responsible for organising the RIPE Meetings and the usage of the prefix is limited to RIPE Meeting networks.
The status of this assignment will be 'ASSIGNED MEETING' in the RIPE Database and must be returned to the RIPE NCC if not in use for RIPE Meeting networks.
Rationale: -------- a. Arguments supporting the proposal
RIPE NCC has been organising RIPE Meetings for over a decade now and it is still responsible for the setup of the meeting network.
As IPv6 deployment has became more of a necessity, the RIPE NCC has been providing IPv6 network during RIPE Meetings too. Although first couple of setups were more at an experimental level, currently we offer this as a production-grade service to the attendees. The IPv6 space for these networks so far has been provided by some other organisations and so the assignments were in temporary nature. We appreciate the support these organisations have provided so far.
Today a permanent IPv6 prefix is a necessity to be able to provide a stable and high quality service during RIPE Meetings. Having such a permanent and dedicated prefix, the RIPE Meeting Team of the RIPE NCC will be able to design and test the RIPE meeting network beforehand, which will ensure stable operation of the IPv6 network during the RIPE Meetings. This will also allow the team to have complete control over the network to effectively address issues related to security, redundancy and setting efficient routing policies with third parties.
The proposal is worded in a way that the IPv6 prefix will be provided to the RIPE Meeting organiser. This is to ensure that the prefix will stay with the meeting organiser for the sole usage in RIPE meetings. This means if the RIPE NCC ceases being the RIPE Meeting organiser in the future, the prefix will be returned to the free pool.
The reason for the size being set to a /48 is about routing reasons. Because this is the minimum excepted routable assignment size that is common among all regions, we think a prefix in this size will guarantee connectivity during RIPE Meetings.
b. Arguments opposing the proposal
Some may argue that this will cause waste of address space because the prefix will be only in use effectively during RIPE meeting
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.
* andrei@ripe.net (Andrei Robachevsky) [Thu 20 Nov 2008, 09:41 CET]:
IPv6 address space assignment for RIPE Meetings ---------------------------------------
A dedicated IPv6 prefix is assigned to the organisation that organises the RIPE Meetings. The size of this prefix is a /48 and the assignment will be valid as long as the organisation is responsible for organising the RIPE Meetings and the usage of the prefix is limited to RIPE Meeting networks.
The status of this assignment will be 'ASSIGNED MEETING' in the RIPE Database and must be returned to the RIPE NCC if not in use for RIPE Meeting networks.
Hey, I run networks at conferences too, albeit in my spare time. Can I get a special case for me as well? While Remco van Mook has a point about the NCC not being able to sign contracts with itself, I find it a stretch to then do away with the policies altogether. It's not as if RIPE meetings are critical infrastructure in any sense of the word, and to be honest I've never had problems with IPv6 routing at them that weren't caused by router brokenness. Given that one of the IPng design criteria was easier renumbering I find it hilarious that you quote the ability to test with the same numbers as justification for this dedicated prefix. -- Niels. --
Andrei, 2008/11/19 Andrei Robachevsky <andrei@ripe.net>:
Dear Colleagues,
This is an informal submission of the proposal that was presented at RIPE 57 in Dubai (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-57/presentations/Robachevsky-IPv6_ass...), as was suggested by the community.
Your feedback is appreciated as well as your opinion whether a formal submission should follow.
Brett and I are now working on updating 2008-05 proposal to modify PI assignments for Critical Infrastructure. I think that what we just need is to enlist RIPE NCC into Critical Infrastructure providers and then there will be no need for some special rule just for RIPE NCC. Two other notes: a) 'RIPE Meeting organiser' - I think it's just too much complicated, while not just say, that RIPE NCC get's prefix for RIPE Meetings and there is a time that RIPE NCC is not organiser of the meeting it will allow new organization to use that prefix? b) My experience with /48 shows that it's not 'common accepted' - you can check IPv6 anycast d.ns.nic.cz in DNSMON service. But I support this size, since if routing is broken during RIPE Meeting it will most likely get fixed very soon ;). But generally speaking I support idea in this proposal. Ondrej -- Ondrej Sury technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
A dedicated IPv6 prefix is assigned to the organisation that organises the RIPE Meetings. The size of this prefix is a /48 and the assignment will be valid as long as the organisation is responsible for organising the RIPE Meetings and the usage of the prefix is limited to RIPE Meeting networks.
As far as I can see, the RIPE NCC's requirements for address space require provider independence from both political and technical points of view. So let's acknowledge this and create a proposal to allow the NCC to assign itself new provider independent resources as required and formalise its existing numbering arrangements. For this reason, I'm in favour of neither this current draft nor the current Gödelian bureaucratic paralysis which is currently prohibiting the NCC from dealing sensibly with its own addressing requirements. If this draft were to become policy, it would lead to the following situation: - ipv4 infrastructure: assigned pi, issued by eu.zz, early assignment - ipv6 infrastructure: a /48 carved out of SARA's /32 PA assignment. - ASN infrastructure: AS3333, early assignment - ipv4 meetings: assigned pi, issued by eu.zz, early assignment - ipv6 meetings: a /48 assigned by policy decree - ASN meetings: AS2121, early assignment Spotting the inconsistencies herein is left as an exercise for the reader. If proposal 2006-01 is passed, and if there is a new policy proposal to allow RIPE to assign itself provider independent number resources, there will be a clear and consistent mechanism for RIPE to formalise all its addressing requirements, past and future. Nick {disclaimer: I have no idea if the NCC is in favour of this thinking}
As far as I can see, the RIPE NCC's requirements for address space require provider independence from both political and technical points of view.
luckily, no other entity has this problem </sarcasm> randy
Greetings! I am against this. I do not like making a special case out of RIPE meetings. But I support the basic idea that a conference organizer should be able to get an IPv6 PI assignment (as 2006-1 is turned into policy). I do not like newly proposed status 'ASSIGNED MEETING' also. I would support any prospective policy proposal which makes NCC able to set a contractual realtionship with itself, if needed to use 2006-1 in this or in any similar case. Best regards, Tomas Hlavacek Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
This is an informal submission of the proposal that was presented at RIPE 57 in Dubai (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-57/presentations/Robachevsky-IPv6_ass...), as was suggested by the community.
Your feedback is appreciated as well as your opinion whether a formal submission should follow.
Regards,
Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC
what makes a RIPE meeting any different than say, a GEANT meeting, a IEEE or IETF conference, or any other technical conference of short duration (say 2 weeks long)? there is a precident (and its not all that good) ... back in the day, the IETF was three times a year, the fourth meeting was an Interoperability slam... which became the "Interop" conferences. They argued for the need for a special network block just for them ... and they have a /8 of IPv4 space to this day. --bill On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 11:39:39PM +0100, Tomas Hlavacek wrote:
Greetings!
I am against this. I do not like making a special case out of RIPE meetings. But I support the basic idea that a conference organizer should be able to get an IPv6 PI assignment (as 2006-1 is turned into policy).
I do not like newly proposed status 'ASSIGNED MEETING' also.
I would support any prospective policy proposal which makes NCC able to set a contractual realtionship with itself, if needed to use 2006-1 in this or in any similar case.
Best regards, Tomas Hlavacek
Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
This is an informal submission of the proposal that was presented at RIPE 57 in Dubai (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-57/presentations/Robachevsky-IPv6_ass...), as was suggested by the community.
Your feedback is appreciated as well as your opinion whether a formal submission should follow.
Regards,
Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC
2008/12/4 <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com>:
what makes a RIPE meeting any different than say, a GEANT meeting, a IEEE or IETF conference, or any other technical conference of short duration (say 2 weeks long)?
RIPE region? RIRs can get microallocation in ARIN and APNIC region (maybe LATNIC and AfriNIC). Ondrej. -- Ondrej Sury technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:55:07PM +0100, OndEej SurC= wrote:
2008/12/4 <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com>:
what makes a RIPE meeting any different than say, a GEANT meeting, a IEEE or IETF conference, or any other technical conference of short duration (say 2 weeks long)?
RIPE region? RIRs can get microallocation in ARIN and APNIC region (maybe LATNIC and AfriNIC).
sure... any of these types of conferences -IN THE RIPE REGION- are going to need address space. they can all go get their own and pummel the routing system w/ adds/deletes as the come/go... or... one prefix could be carved out and handed to whomever needs it this week/month.
Ondrej. -- Ondrej Sury technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:53 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:55:07PM +0100, OndEej SurC= wrote:
2008/12/4 <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com>:
what makes a RIPE meeting any different than say, a GEANT meeting, a IEEE or IETF conference, or any other technical conference of short duration (say 2 weeks long)?
RIPE region? RIRs can get microallocation in ARIN and APNIC region (maybe LATNIC and AfriNIC).
sure... any of these types of conferences -IN THE RIPE REGION- are going to need address space. they can all go get their own and pummel the routing system w/ adds/deletes as the come/go...
You're aware, of course, that this would be so far down in the noise in the routing flux that only the terminally pedantic would notice, right?
or... one prefix could be carved out and handed to whomever needs it this week/month.
Long ago, APNIC dedicated a block of /16s to show networks. Don't know if that's still the use of that block. One interesting side note: it turned out that connectivity contracts for shows had significantly longer duration than the shows themselves. On several occasions the ISP for the old show refused to stop announcing the prefix APNIC allocated for the show because they had a contract that required them to announce the address space. The fact that the prefix was no longer registered to the show operator in the APNIC was irrelevant. Much entertainment ensued. But that was long ago. I'm sure things are much better now. Regards, -drc
On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:53 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
...
sure... any of these types of conferences -IN THE RIPE REGION- are going to need address space. they can all go get their own and pummel the routing system w/ adds/deletes as the come/go...
You're aware, of course, that this would be so far down in the noise in the routing flux that only the terminally pedantic would notice, right?
And, of course, announcing the same prefix from different origins causes just the same ... Regards, Andreas
participants (12)
-
Andreas Schachtner -
Andrei Robachevsky -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
David Conrad -
Jeroen Massar -
Nick Hilliard -
Niels Bakker -
Ondřej Surý -
Randy Bush -
Remco van Mook -
Tomas Hlavacek -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet