Kurt Erik Lindqvist [mailto:kurtis@kurtis.pp.se] wrote:

On måndag, maj 12, 2003, at 21:33 Europe/Stockholm, Gert Doering wrote:

...

...

500 TLA's over 54 countries!

Oh, wow. Very impressive, this!

Maybe we actually will hit 1000 rotues! :-)

Another thing though :

4 790 829408 440969 18406 0 0 2w5d 424

I only see 424 of these though. Anyone that have already started mapping the times of when an allocation is made and when it first shows up in the routing table?

http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/ With last seens atm, got to fish the first seens from the archive (show up as empty now). They will pop up later today :) Note that a 'first seen' is not very useful as it could pop up for a couple of minutes (even due to routing troubles) and then fade away again... When you follow the link behind the 'lastseen' you will see all the marks made where the prefix was originating from and over how many ASPaths it was detected. Greets, Jeroen

% >http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/ % > % >With last seens atm, got to fish the first seens from % >the archive (show up as empty now). They will pop up % >later today :) Note that a 'first seen' is not very useful % >as it could pop up for a couple of minutes (even due to % >routing troubles) and then fade away again... % >When you follow the link behind the 'lastseen' you will see % >all the marks made where the prefix was originating from % >and over how many ASPaths it was detected. % % This keeps turning into an ever more useful page. Kudos to the author! % % What are the RIRs doing to reclaim all those "red" lines of allocations % that have never once appeared in a routing table? I would say all % assignments from before Jan 2002 and that have "never" in the "last seen" % column are ripe for revocation. Question is, why hasn't this been done % before and has this been discussed so far? % % -Hank Well, in at least one case, 2001:0478, you should never see a /32 or /35 announcement. This prefix is used for exchange points and critical infrastructure and is delegated as /48s --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

On Fri, 16 May 2003, leo vegoda wrote:

Hank Nussbacher <hank@att.net.il> writes:

[...]

...

What are the RIRs doing to reclaim all those "red" lines of allocations that have never once appeared in a routing table?I would say all assignments from before Jan 2002 and that have "never"in the "last seen" column are ripe for revocation.Question is, why hasn't this been done before and has this been discussed so far?

Is there a policy requirement that IPv6 prefixes allocated by RIRs must be routed on The Internet? I've not found it in the current "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy".

Is there such a requirement for IPv4 prefixes? If yes (and I would hope so, otherwise why would anyone want RFC1918 addresses when one can get "real" IPs), then I think the same should apply for IPv6 prefixes.

Regards,

-- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services

-Hank

On Fri, 16 May 2003, Bill Manning wrote:

% > Is there a policy requirement that IPv6 prefixes allocated by RIRs must % > be routed on The Internet? I've not found it in the current "IPv6 % > Address Allocation and Assignment Policy". % % Is there such a requirement for IPv4 prefixes?If yes (and I would hope % so, otherwise why would anyone want RFC1918 addresses when one can get % "real" IPs), then I think the same should apply for IPv6 prefixes. % % > leo vegoda % % -Hank

there has never been a requirement that a prefix berouted or announced on the "Internet".

In that case why does an ISP have to: 5.1.1.d: have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two years. See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html -Hank

--bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

Hank Nussbacher

Hi, On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 05:31:45AM -0700, Bill Manning wrote:

there has never been a requirement that a prefix be routed or announced on the "Internet".

Yes, and 32 bits are enough for everybody :-) So maybe now is the time to look upon the way things have been done in the past and consider "is that the way we want to do them in the future"? The IPv6 policy as it stands now (which doesn't say that it's cast in stone or that it's a perfect policy - beware) gives IPv6 address space to entities that claim that they are going to use it to facilitate internet access for (200 and more) 3rd parties. So if that address space isn't visible, the prerequisites are not fulfilled, obviously, and it would be in the boundaries of the policy to take the address space back. As of today, I do not think that's useful. Why? Because people might just be slow in building their IPv6 networks, or have put their projects on hold (due to financial reasons). So being overly restrictive here is just hurting IPv6 deployment, for no gain. Something worth to do for someone with too much time on their hand is to figure out whether those companies that have non-visible address space actually still exist, or whether they went under - in which case it would kind of "automatically" fall back to the registry. But then this is certainly not a high priority job for the *registries* - they have more important forward thinking to do. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54495 (54267) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

Hi, On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 06:20:24AM -0700, Bill Manning wrote:

% So if that address space isn't visible, the prerequisites are not % fulfilled, obviously, and it would be in the boundaries of the policy % to take the address space back. Visable to whom?

To the majority of the internet users (as you insist on claiming that there is nothing as "the global routing table"). The Internet is an *Inter*network. It's about connecting all of it together, not building small splinter networks that have no connectivity. There is currently no provision in the IPv6 policy for people that just want some local/VPN connectivity and no global routing. Maybe that needs changing as well. (Site-locals had some potential for "local" things, but they are dead, as far as I understand). David, could you put that on your list of things to consider? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54495 (54267) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

% Hi, % % On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 06:20:24AM -0700, Bill Manning wrote: % > % So if that address space isn't visible, the prerequisites are not % > % fulfilled, obviously, and it would be in the boundaries of the policy % > % to take the address space back. % > Visable to whom? % % To the majority of the internet users (as you insist on claiming that % there is nothing as "the global routing table"). does that majority have to include you or I? and show me the global routing table please? % The Internet is an *Inter*network. It's about connecting all of it % together, not building small splinter networks that have no connectivity. The Internet in one mesh of interconected networks that run the IP protocol suite. There are others. Military networks, Closed commercial networks, Financial networks, Research networks, ... its a long list. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

% > and show me the global routing table please? % % This is kinda difficult, as everybody has a local view of it, of course. er, not really. my view is "global" in the sense that it represents my total scope of reachability. e.g. I can send a packet to anywhere in my table view. Not in my view, not in the "global" system. Anything outside that view is in private space as far as I can tell. Should I insist that if I can't see it, then folks should renumber into private space? % % > % The Internet is an *Inter*network. It's about connecting all of it % > % together, not building small splinter networks that have no connectivity. % > % > The Internet in one mesh of interconected networks that run % > the IP protocol suite. There are others. Military networks, % > Closed commercial networks, Financial networks, Research networks, % > ... its a long list. % % So what? % % If those networks decide to use different rules for IP/IPv6 address % allocation and usage, why should we care? % % If they decide to become part of "The Internet", then they are part of % the global routing table/system. Hum... where to begin. First off, it seems that you are making the assertion that entities will make the unconnected/connected transition -once- which emperical evidence suggests is not always true. In the past decade, there is a significant body of evidence that networks and nodes are gaining mobility. part of that mobility is that they "disconnect" from all or part of the net for periods of time, sometimes for milliseconds, sometimes for months/years. recognising this as a basic feature of internetworking, one would hope that a consistant suite of addressing guidelines would be applicable, regardless of the state of "connectedness". anyway, thats why I care. % Sorry, but I don't get your point. you are not alone. :) % Gert Doering % -- NetMaster % -- % Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54495 (54267) % % SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net % Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 % 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 % -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

Hi, On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 12:05:23PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:

Is there such a requirement for IPv4 prefixes? If yes (and I would hope so, otherwise why would anyone want RFC1918 addresses when one can get "real" IPs), then I think the same should apply for IPv6 prefixes.

For IPv4, it's not a requirement. There are certain cases where uniqueness of IP addresses is a MUST (think "VPN connections in large enterprises" - RFC space quite often just leads to collisions and double NAT and more problems), but routeability in the network out there is really not needed, sometimes explicitely not wanted. For IPv4 *PA* space, it's kind of implicit, as the whole purpose of that is to facilitate internet access for an ISP and his customers. Nevertheless the same rule applies: sufficient reason to get address space is "uniquely number machines", not "make them visible outside" (BTDT). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54495 (54267) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299