August 2001 - eix-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy for Internet Exchange Points
by Fearghas McKay 03 Sep '01

03 Sep '01

Following discussion between the WG-Chairs and the NCC we have the following proposed draft. To enable allocations to be made as soon as possible we are soliciting comments over the next few days but unless there are any issues we would like to start making allocations by the end of next week, ie 7th September 2001. Please send any comments to the LIR-WG list <lir-wg(a)ripe.net> We propose a joint session to be held at RIPE40 where we can discuss the initial size allocations, information required in the forms and other issues raised by the community after which we will formalise the proposal. Thanks Fearghas EIX-WG Chair -- IPv6 Address Assignment Policy for Internet Exchange Points =========================================================== 1. Abstract ----------- This document describes a policy for Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) under which unique IPv6 address space to be used for the infrastructure of the Internet Exchange Point can be obtained from a Regional Internet Registry (RIR). 2. Background ------------- It has been recognised that there are scenarios in which it is not desirable for IXPs to obtain address space from one of the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) connecting at the IXP. In these cases it is viable to have unique IPv6 address space assigned directly from an RIR. This address space is needed to adress the Exchange fabric. This issue has been brought forward to the RIPE community in May 2000 and has subsequently been discussed at RIPE Meetings and on public RIPE mailing lists. The conclusions of these discussions are described in this document. It is expected that the same policy will be accepted in the ARIN and the APNIC region at which point it will be incorporated in the Global IPv6 Policy document. 3. Definition ------------- An Internet Exchange Point is defined as a physical network infrastructure (layer 2) operated by a single entity with the purpose to facilitate the exchange of Internet traffic between Internet service providers. The number of Internet Service providers connected should at least be three and there must be a clear and open policy for others to join. Addresses needed for other purposes (e.g. additional services provided to the members) should be aquired through other appropriate means ( e.g. an upstream ISP). 4. Policy --------- An IXP that seeks to obtain an IPv6 address assignment by the RIR in its region, needs to submit a request to that RIR. IXPs operating in the RIPE NCC service region should use the 'IPv6 Request Form for Internet Exchange Points' (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6request-exchangepoint.html) After approval of the request, the RIR will make the assignment. Since the address space does not need to be routable globally and an IXP is expected to only have one subnet, a /64 (64 bits of address space) will be assigned in most cases. In the case the IXP is using multiple fabrics (e.g. unicast separated for multicast), multiple /64s can be assigned to the IXP. IP Address requests can only be handled if the requestor is a Local Internet Registry (LIR) or if the request made through an existing LIR. 5. Other Considerations ----------------------- It should be noted that ISPs usually do not announce address space used on the IXP mesh itself to their peers. That means the address space assigned under this policy is likely not to be routable globally.

6 8

Interim Policy discussion
by David Kessens 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

This is a request to keep our discussion focused: - let's try to keep the discussion on lir-wg. - the proposed policy is an interim policy, that means further changes can be and will made to the policy after it has been approved. we don't have to discuss all those changes right now, *unless* you cannot live with the interim policy at all without such changes. - the policy is not intended to solve all problems to everybody. I hope this helps, David K. ---

1 0

IPv6 request form for Internet Exchange Points
by Nurani Nimpuno 29 Aug '01

29 Aug '01

Dear all, Following the consensus reached in the community on assigning IPv6 address space to Internet Exchange Points, the RIPE NCC is now starting to make IPv6 assignments to requesting Internet Exchange Points. A specific request form has been created for this purpose, "IPv6 Request Form for Internet Exchange Points" which can be obtained at the RIPE document store at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6request-exchangepoint.html Pending requestors will be asked to complete this form in order to receive an IPv6 assignment from the RIPE NCC. We wish to thank all participants of this discussion for the constructive input in this matter. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno *--------------------------------------------------------* | Nurani Nimpuno <nurani(a)ripe.net> | | Internet Address Policy Manager | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | | http://www.ripe.net | *--------------------------------------------------------*

7 9

Re: IPv6 request form for Internet Exchange Points
by Nurani Nimpuno 23 Aug '01

23 Aug '01

All, When concluding the discussion on IPv6 addresses for IXPs, the RIPE NCC were under the impression that participants in the discussion felt that they had had ample time to discuss the final proposed policy. Mirjam sent out a summary on the lists 28 June 2001 after the intense discussion both at the last RIPE meeting and on the mailing lists. (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/20010401-20010701/msg00 228.html) There were a few comments on actual wording that Mirjam took into account, but no further discussion. No objections were raised to the proposed definition. The RIPE NCC has several pending requests for IPv6 address space from IXPs that have been waiting since April. After such lengthy discussion and no further input from the community, we therefore felt that it would be appropriate to move forward and implement the concluded policy in order to meet the need of these LIRs. We do of course recognise the great importance of ensuring that the policy that the RIPE NCC implements is the one agreed upon by the community. This is essential. We also recognise the need for improving the co-ordination between the working group chairs and the RIPE NCC. We hope to discuss this further with the chairs. Some comments have been made on the list suggesting the RIPE NCC to not further postpone the evaluation of the currently pending IXP requests. If this reflects the general feeling in the community, then the RIPE NCC is ready to move forward and do so. If however, there is a need for further discussion, then we wish to encourage everyone to actively contribute with their comments. I hope that there is no need to postpone this discussion until the RIPE 40 meeting in October. I trust the working group chairs to propose a way forward that will ensure a fair and correct conclusion of this discussion. Kind regards, Nurani *--------------------------------------------------------* | Nurani Nimpuno <nurani(a)ripe.net> | | Internet Address Policy Manager | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | | http://www.ripe.net | *--------------------------------------------------------* "Hans Petter Holen" <hph(a)online.no> writes: * | Agreed!!! I understand the need to ensure complete consensus regarding * | allocation, but *please* can we aim for a temporary work around to allow * | us to get an allocation using the existing document. * | * | We could review the interim allocations once the consensus is finally * | reached, and supply any new information then _if_ needed. But as Robert * | says, this has gone on far too long already! * * Would this be a way to proceede; * introduce the procedure proposed by Nurani as an interim procedure * in order to get this thing rolling ? * * Nothing is worse than technology and customers waiting for politicians * to make up their mind... * * * -hph *

1 0

RGMP submission to the IETF.
by Steve Walker 21 Aug '01

21 Aug '01

All, Thought you might find this info I received from Steve Simlo at Cisco to be of interest to you: RGMP is now published as an IETF draft and can be found at: http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wu-rgmp-01.txt As you know RGMP is a released IOS feature and is documented here: ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/ipmulticast.html#RGMP Cisco intends to pursue this as the standard mechanism of interconnecting Layer 2/3 devices at MIXs since it offers great scalability and will not be impacted by future modifications to the PIM protocol spec. Regards, Steve.

1 0

New Document available: RIPE-224
by RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service 16 Aug '01

16 Aug '01

New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new document is available from the RIPE document store. Short content description ------------------------- This document contains the set of templates to be used when submitting an "IPv6 Request Form for Internet Exchange Points". Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- The RIPE document store is available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-224.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-224.txt plain text version You can also access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW. RIPE-224 is available from the WWW at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ipv6request-exchangepoint.html

1 0

Incomplete Arpa
by Saher 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

Dear sir : I have a question for you when exactly do i get an incomplete arpa on the cisco router for pc's noting that they r closed not open and how to prevent it. Thank you Saher

1 0

Fwd: Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by Fearghas McKay 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

This will also include a section for IXP IPv6 allocation. This will hopefully be seperate from the main EIX-WG meeting as the schedule for it is fairly full currently. If anyone want to present please contact David directly. f --- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: lists-lir-wg-out(a)lists.ripe.net X-mProtect: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 06:06:48 -0700 Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging Protection Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 06:02:44 -0700 From: David Kessens <david(a)IPRG.nokia.com> To: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> Cc: Stephen Burley <stephenb(a)uk.uu.net>, lir-wg(a)ripe.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made Sender: owner-lir-wg(a)ripe.net On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 11:18:15AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > As far as I remember the IPv6 policy discussions on the last RIPE meetings, > one thing that was voiced repeatedly was > > "if we have to hand out /48's to customers, a /35 for the LIR itself > is not enough" For your information: We are currently planning a joint session for ipv6 allocation policy issues for the next RIPE meeting. It would be really nice if we can get volunteers from the community who can give a brief presentation on possible solutions. The problem description is pretty clear by now, however, I have not seen any (public) proposals yet on how to solve it. Obviously, there are multiple ways to deal with the issue and it would be nice to discuss advantages and disadvantages of different solutions. David K. --- --- end forwarded text

1 0