Hi BCOP people,
As I promised on Monday during the BCOP session at RIPE 72 I would prepare a community statement that reflect the wise words that our RIPE Chair, Hand Petter Holen, made at the opening ceremony. I discussed this with Hans Petter because I don't want to take someone else's words without permission. He was ok with using his words as the starting point and form a community statement in BCOP based on that.
For reference here is the original transcript taken from https://ripe72.ripe.net/archives/steno/5/:
> Now when that is said, it's always also important to realise that with IPv4 space, the legacy old IP addresses, there isn't anything left; we have a small reserve so new members can get a /22, as we call it, around a thousand addresses, so they can start up a business. But this is not things you can build your future on. The only way to survive in the future is to implement v6 from the start, then you can get some v4 addresses so you can boot strap and still be connected to the legacy Internet, but it is possible today to build v6 networks and have transition mechanisms to v4 and that is the only sustainable way going forward.
As my intention is both making a clear statement about the Best Current Operational Practice on using the last remaining IPv4 addresses, and to show confirmation as a community that we stand behind the statement from our RIPE chair I have stayed as close to this original as possible. I have reorganised it a bit to make it easier to read, and I propose that we bring the following text to the floor on Friday:
-------------
It is important to realise that there isn't any IPv4 space left; the RIPE NCC has a small reserve so new members can get a /22 so they can start up a business, to bootstrap and to communicate with the legacy Internet. But this is not something anybody can build their future on. The only way to survive in the future is to implement IPv6 from the start. It is possible to build IPv6 networks today and have transition mechanisms to IPv4, and that is the only sustainable way forward.
-------------
If this task force agrees on a text I will present it on Friday during the closing plenary and ask the community as a whole to express their support.
Please let me know if you think the proposed text is indeed a BCOP and that it represents the words from Hans Petter correctly.
Cheers,
Sander
Hi all,
The draft agenda is just published, but we still have room for one contribution.
You think some operational practices should be documented? Take the floor for a 10-15 minutes pitch and find other interested network engineers to work on a BCOP document!
Drop me or Jan, or both, an email if you want to present your ideas.
Best,
Jan Zorz & Benno Overeinder
--
Benno J. Overeinder
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
Hi all,
The RIPE 72 BCOP Task Force session is scheduled for Monday May 23th, 18:00-19:00. The draft agenda is:
Where: Main room
• A. Administrative Matters and Agenda Bashing [5 min], Benno and Jan
• B. Report on what's going on in LAC and Africa region re BCOP [10 min], Jan Zorz
• C. BCOP on DNS operations [15 min], Markus de Brün
• D. MANRS BCOP update [15 min], Andrei Robachevsky and Job Snijders
• E. Open Microphone Session: Ideas for New BCOPs and Volunteering
We still have a slot available for pitching an idea on documenting best operational practices.
See you in Copenhagen,
Jan Zorz & Benno Overeinder
--
Benno J. Overeinder
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
Colleagues,
Following Job's presentation "MANRS Implementation Document" at the BCOP
TF at RIPE71 last week
(https://ripe71.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/bcop-tf/), we corralled
a group of volunteers to move this project forward.
Folks that agreed to help and share their experience are: Brian J.
Foust, Aaron Hughes, Will van Gulik and Aris Lambrianidis. Thank you!
Of course Job and I will continue to shoulder this effort.
To continue discussions and produce a draft document for wider review we
created a mailinglist:
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/manrs-bcop. Feel free to
subscribe if you are interested!
Otherwise - stay tuned.
Regards,
Job and Andrei
Job Snijders wrote on 29/10/15 17:41:
> Hi all,
>
> We discussed this idea a few times before and I think agreed that it'd
> be a good idea to have a more precise guidance for the implementation of
> MANRS Actions.
>
> As I can see, it will serve at least two purposes:
>
> - Ease deployment of measures required by MANRS (we are talking here
> about stub networks or small providers - the majority of ASNs)
> - Help checking if the network setup is compliant with MANRS
>
> From my discussions with operators at various meetings where Andrei
> Robachevsky presented MANRS it was also quite clear that such guidance
> for the MANRS "package" would be appreciated, also to be able to assess
> what it takes to become MANRS-compliant.
>
> So, Andrei and I took a stab at an outline of such document. It really
> has only a structure and is lacking content with examples, etc. at the
> moment. Help is needed!
>
> We put it as a Google doc, all of you should be able to edit it, so
> please help with some stuff. Even if it is a raw material - such input
> would be appreciated.
>
> The document is here:
>
>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FQAVawGGvb-xqNLeGLk05h5nuu0FSS_9KLv6gBa…
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
