- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Reminder: filters have to permit /32s now
by Gert Doering 06 Jul '02

06 Jul '02

Hi, for those of you that are doing strict IPv6 prefix filtering: please adapt your filters to permit /32s and /35s from 2001::/16. RIPE is now allocating /32s, and upgrading existing /35s to /32 - and I am right now observing some IPv6 connectivity issues that could be explained by "our 2001:608::/32 (active since yesterday) is not being accepted by some ASes". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 45809 (45931) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

1 0

New IPv6 policy implemented on 1 July 2002
by Paul Rendek 01 Jul '02

01 Jul '02

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce the implementation of the new IPv6 policy effective 1 July 2002. This IPv6 policy was accepted by consensus at RIPE 42 and is common to all Regional Internet Registry communities - APNIC, ARIN, and the RIPE NCC. The new policy replaces the provisional IPv6 policy launched in 1999. The IPv6 Policy documentation is available from the RIPE document store at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/internet-registries.html The current set of IPv6 documents are: - IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy - Initial IPv6 Allocation Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service Region - Supporting Notes for the Initial IPv6 Allocation Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service Region - IPv6 End User Site Assignment Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service Region - Supporting Notes for the IPv6 End User Site Assignment Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service Region Key points of the new IPv6 policy you should be aware of: - The minimum allocation size is /32; - LIRs currently holding a /35 have the option of expanding their allocation to a /32 on request; - In 2002, no additional fees are charged for IPv6 address space in the RIPE NCC service region. The RIPE NCC IPv6 web pages can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/IPv6/ Regards, Paul Rendek Communications Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

New IPv6 Documents available
by RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service 27 Jun '02

27 Jun '02

New/Revised RIPE Document Announcement, apologies for multiple e-mails. -------------------------------------- Revised/new documents available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-246 Title: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy Author: ARIN, APNIC, RIPE NCC Date: 27 June 2002 Format: PS= 812450 TXT=31632 Obsoletes: ripe-196 Ref: ripe-247 Title: Initial IPv6 Allocation Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service Region Author: Leo Vegoda Date: 27 June 2002 Format: PS=16615 TXT=4226 Obsoletes: ripe-195 Ref: ripe-248 Title: Supporting Notes to the Initial IPv6 Allocation Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service Region Author: Leo Vegoda Date: 27 June 2002 Format: PS=28439 TXT=12788 Ref: ripe-249 Title: IPv6 End User Site Assignment Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service Region Author: Leo Vegoda Date: 27 June 2002 Format: PS=16477 TXT=4126 Ref: ripe-250 Title: Supporting Notes for the IPv6 End User Site Assignment Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service Region Author: Leo Vegoda Date: 27 June 2002 Format: PS=34008 TXT=15211 Short content description ------------------------- This set of IPv6 documents define registry policies for the assignment and allocation of globally-unique IPv6 addresses to Internet ServiceProviders (ISPs) and other organisations. The core document: "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" (ripe-246) obsoletes the "Provisional IPv6 assignment and allocation policy document" (ripe-196). It was developed through joint discussions among the APNIC, ARIN and RIPE communities. The other documents support the policy document, and provide Local Internet Registries with request forms for IPv6 address space. Supporting notes for the request forms can be found in the supporting notes documents. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- You can access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW at the following URLs: "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" (ripe-246) is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html "Initial IPv6 Allocation Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service Region" (ripe-247) is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-initial.html "Supporting Notes for the Initial IPv6 Allocation Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service Region" (ripe-248) is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-supp-initial.html "IPv6 End User Site Assignment Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service Region" (ripe-249) is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-assignment-request.html "Supporting Notes for the IPv6 End User Site Assignment Request Form in the RIPE NCC Service Region" (ripe-250) is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-supp-assignment.html The RIPE document store is also 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-246.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-246.txt plain text version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-247.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-247.txt plain text version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-247.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-247.txt plain text version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-247.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-247.txt plain text version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-247.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-247.txt plain text version Kind Regards, RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service

1 0

RE: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
by Guy Davies 20 Jun '02

20 Jun '02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > -----Original Message----- > From: Nigel Titley [mailto:nigel@titley.com] > > On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 07:11, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > At 06:00 AM 6/12/2002, Geoff Huston wrote: > > >However, the distinction between "ALLOCATED" and > "ASSIGNED" is perhaps a bit subtle. > > > > When these attributes were created, those particular words > were in deemed both descriptive and clear. > > Maybe the language concerned has shifted underneath in the > meantime ;-). > > As a native speaker of one of its dialects, would you make > a suggestion for improvement? > > Well actually as a native speaker of (another) of its dialects, > I've never considered the distinction of ALLOCATED and ASSIGNED to > be other than subtle. I'd much prefer DELEGATED and ASSIGNED or > some such. This may be a matter of taste however. I tend to agree with Nigel, although I'd go for something even plainer like DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER (I know they're a bit verbose but they're absolutely clear ;-) It also makes clear that addresses assigned to an LIR in the role of END-USER are exactly that. That way, an individual who is struggling with English as a second language (or even their first language ;-) can be absolutely clear of the status of a range of addresses. Just my two pence... Regards, Guy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.1 iQA/AwUBPQca4I3dwu/Ss2PCEQJv6ACeMa1ZbnoN3P7r6VaBANGPa1yXN9UAoMLQ cJpgKn6FvDPmyD1X02WLXJF3 =yl1x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- This e-mail is private and may be confidential and is for the intended recipient only. If misdirected, please notify us by telephone and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and any copies destroyed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from using, printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this e-mail or any information contained in it. We use reasonable endeavors to virus scan all e-mails leaving the Company but no warranty is given that this e-mail and any attachments are virus free. You should undertake your own virus checking. The right to monitor e-mail communications through our network is reserved by us.

8 8

RE: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

>For me these two phrases, DELEGATED-TO-LIR and >ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER, hit the spot precisely! >excellent suggestion Guy! >Is it appropriate to request consideration of these terms as replacements >for ASSIGNED and ALLOCATED? Wouldn't it be a good idea to standardize the terminology with ARIN and others? In that case, the term LIR would be considered obscure and meaningless. Since all LIRs are service providers of some sort, either ISPs or an internal network service provider, I think that a standard terminology should try to use generic terms. That would mean either DELEGATED-TO-SVC-PROVIDER or DELEGATED-TO-NSP if you like acronyms (Network Service Provider). In any case, because the distinction between "allocated" and "assigned" has been unclear in the past and because there is a significant shift in terminology from "allocated" to "delegated" this change should be incorporated in an informational RFC. This document would help in clarifying that there is indeed a difference between the two states of an address block and would also help in promoting the use of this terminology amongst the community that deal with IP address delegations and assignments. DELEGATED-TO-NSP and ASSIGNED-TO-USER are two terms that would be clear worldwide. Michael Dillon Network Product Engineering Radianz

2 1

Re: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
by Geoff Huston 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

>To clarify, the values that APNIC would prefer to use are: > >ALLOCATED PORTABLE >ALLOCATED NON-PORTABLE >ASSIGNED PORTABLE >ASSIGNED NON-PORTABLE > >As I mentioned before, these values would be consistent with those in >IPv4 (which take effect in August when the migration to version 3 of the >RIPE database is complete). > >Comments? I would be in favour of this clarity in the field regarding PORTABLE and NON_PORTABLE. However, the distinction between "ALLOCATED" and "ASSIGNED" is perhaps a bit subtle. regards, Geoff

1 0

Re: [hostmaster-staff] Re: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

>Allocation and assign do have definitions - could these be improved >to clarify the meaning? Or does 'delegate' simply convey a much >clearer intention with the address space? Delegation is clearer for two reasons. Firstly, it implies that the the delegator is passing on some responsibility for the address space. The organization receiving a delegation is responsible for managing and administering the addresses. In the case of an assignment, this is less true. For instance, ISPs regularly reassign addresses after a customer disconnects and everyone seems to understand that addresses assignments are controlled by the assigner and can be withdrawn. The second reason has more to do with psychology. Because the terms "allocation" and "assignment" are similar in meaning and visually similar, they are easily confused by a lot of people. They both begin with "a" followed by a double consonant and end with a latin suffix. Of course, clear definitions are always a good thing as well. Michael Dillon Network Product Engineering Radianz

1 0

RE: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
by kevin.bates＠bt.com 12 Jun '02

12 Jun '02

seems better but not perfect - the important thing is to get all databases looking the same and using the same terms? strictly speaking it is not "ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER" its "ASSIGNED-TO-SUBNET-USER" for example it could be part of a DHCP dial up pool and thus only " leased" for the duration of that connexion. > At 11:56 AM 6/12/2002, Guy Davies wrote: > >I tend to agree with Nigel, although I'd go for something even > >plainer like DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER (I know > >they're a bit verbose but they're absolutely clear ;-) It also makes > >clear that addresses assigned to an LIR in the role of END-USER are > >exactly that. That way, an individual who is struggling with English > >as a second language (or even their first language ;-) can be > >absolutely clear of the status of a range of addresses. > > This is an excellent idea. However I would use > ALLOCATED_TO_LIR and ASSIGNED_TO_END_USER. > That way we clarify the subtle difference while > maintaining consistency with existing documentation. > > (If I remember correctly the term DELEGATED was suggested at the time, > but not used because of its usage in the DNS context as well as > the connotation of total transfer of authority over the resource which > is not quite the case.) > > Daniel

2 1

RE: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
by Geoff Huston 12 Jun '02

12 Jun '02

> > This is an excellent idea. However I would use > > ALLOCATED_TO_LIR and ASSIGNED_TO_END_USER. > > That way we clarify the subtle difference while > > maintaining consistency with existing documentation. > > > > (If I remember correctly the term DELEGATED was suggested at the time, > > but not used because of its usage in the DNS context as well as > > the connotation of total transfer of authority over the resource which > > is not quite the case.) To me "DELEGATED-TO-LIR" makes sense, as it infers that the process of further delegation can be used with sub-blocks and/or atomic units can be "ASSIGNED-TO-END-USERs with the inference that no further sub assignments are anticipated. Geoff

1 0

RE: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
by Michel Py 12 Jun '02

12 Jun '02

> Anne Lord wrote: > There is no PI in IPv6. > This can't be said often enough. We are working on two new types of v6 addresses that are neither PA nor PI for multihoming. Please keep in mind that PA does not provide enough functionality; if no multihoming protocol is released in a timely manner you will inevitably have PI, or whatever you want to call everyone becoming a LIR. Michel.

1 0