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

Global IPv6 Policy Document
by Mirjam Kuehne 22 Aug '01

22 Aug '01

Dear LIRs, I am happy to inform you that the first draft of the Global IPv6 policies document is ready for a collective review by the RIRs. This draft incorporates the results of discussions that took place at open policy meetings and intensive meetings among the RIRs and the IETF. This review will also allow time for APNIC to present some of the new developments already discussed in the ARIN and RIPE community to its community at the upcoming APNIC open policy meeting on 28 - 31 August. As agreed at RIPE 39, following the RIR revision, the document will be sent to an editorial team for review. We hope to have a final draft ready to publish to the LIR-WG approximately 3 weeks prior to the RIPE 40 Meeting. However, this relies on the reactions from both the APNIC community and the editorial team. Thank you for all the useful contributions made so far. Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

2 1

New RIPE-147 needed!
by Berislav Todorovic 21 Aug '01

21 Aug '01

Maybe this will sound like a hassle, but ... ... Everytime I receive a ripe-147 form from teh customer I have to "patch" it myself, to make it compliant with the new RPSL syntax. Any chance to get the new, RPSL-capable form in place (but as a NEW RIPE document, please!)? Here's what should be changed: * Add "as-name:" attribute. * Replace "as-in:" with "import:" and "as-out:" with "export:". * Check to see if RPSL syntax is honored. * Check the examples and make them compliant with RPSL syntax. Regards, Beri --------- Berislav Todorovic, Network Engineer --------- ------- KPNQwest N.V. - IP NOC (formerly EUnet NOC) ------- ---- Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 78, 2595 AN Den Haag, NL ---- --- Phone: +31-70-379-3990; Mobile: +31-651-333-641 --- -- Email: beri(a)kpnqwest.net <=> beri(a)EU.net -- --- _ _ ____ _ .--. ____ ____ __/_ --- ----- /__/ /___/ /\ / / / | / /___/ /___ / ------ ------ _/ \_ / _/ \/ (__.\ |/\/ /___ ____/ (__. -----

1 0

Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by Dave Pratt 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

Hiya all, In my view it is not so ambitious to be recommending /16 allocations to "supernational" organisations as this is the policy originally recommended in RFC2374 and elsewhere. On the other hand: "Will these supernational organisations be advertising parts of this /16 into the global routing table". If the answer is yes, then I think they should be making multiple regional or national requests, and receiving multiple /20 or /24 allocations according to their likely longterm requirements in each region. Everytime an LIR requests and gets additional addresses because of an insufficiently small original allocation (whether through the 80% rule, or 90% according to RFC2450 !! or my suggested 10% rule), the RIR's have effectively made a mistake as this means one unnecessary route in the routing table. I'm not suggesting the RIR's give a /16 (or /20,/24,/28,/32, for that matter) to anybody who asks. The requester must justify that such an allocation is appropriate (with the RIR's taking a much more generous stance in contrast to what they need to do with IPv4). Cheers Dave BT Ignite GmbH, On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Tim Chown wrote: ->As a group, we have not discussed more ambitious suggestions such as those ->at http://www.djp.net/ipv6/proposal.html where a /16 is suggested for the ->"supernational" organisations. ->Tim

5 7

RE: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by stuart.prevost＠bt.com 13 Aug '01

13 Aug '01

David, Whilst I agree with what you are saying in that the RIPE community has identified issues, and that it is time to go into more detail to define a workable allocation policy. It would help if we had insight into what the 3 RIR thoughts are regarding these issues. I know that a new policy document will be published very shortly, and we should hopefully see what progress has been made towards a workable allocation policy. Personally I feel that it has taken far to long for a revised allocation policy to materialize, since review of the current document started in October 1999. Almost two years on we don't have new draft-policy we can even discuss let alone implement. Anyway I'll stop going on about it and look forward to reading the new draft :) Regards, Stuart > -----Original Message----- > From: David Kessens [mailto:david@IPRG.nokia.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 4:46 PM > To: BIDRON Alain BRX/DAP > Cc: Stephen Burley; lir-wg(a)ripe.net; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made > > > > Alain, > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 04:45:24PM +0200, BIDRON Alain > BRX/DAP wrote: > > > > Do we really need to explore solutions again or do we need > a new Draft > > from the RIRs taking into account those proposals and the consensus > > expressed around, and able to be approved by the community ? > > I think that the problem description is quite clear. I think that it > is also clear that a majority of the people would like to have a > larger initial allocation. > > However, it is not clear how big such an allocation should be, whether > there should be a uniform size of the initial allocation, whether > multi-national registries should be able to get more than one > allocation etc. > > Next, we will also need to take a look at the definition of 80% > utilization, when people can come back to the regional registries for > more address space and how much address space they will get when they > come back and qualify for more address space. > > It's up to us as the RIPE community to identify these issues and to > advise the RIPE NCC on how to fix the current policy. So far, we have > done quite a good job in identifying the issues, it's now time to go > in more detail in order to define a workable allocation policy. > > David K. > --- >

1 0

Question about RIPE-183
by Stephen Burley 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

Hi Quick question is RIPE-183 still valid or has it been superceded. The reason i am asking is would the automaton support self generated ticket numbers, we havea need for this and would like to use the facilities mentioned in the document. Regards, Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster

2 1

RE: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by stuart.prevost＠bt.com 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

Sabrina, It would be nice if the new draft could be mailed to the relevant lists before the RIPE 40 meeting so people can have a meaningful discussion. Please can you indicate if/when a new version of the policy document will be published? Thanks, Stuart > -----Original Message----- > From: Sabrina Waschke [mailto:sabrina@ripe.net] > Sent: 09 August 2001 17:16 > To: James Aldridge > Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made > > > > James, > > Your request for a subsequent sub-TLA allocation was evaluated > according to the Provisional IPv6 Assignment and Allocation > Policy (4.2.5. Criteria for Subsequent Sub-TLA Allocations). > Please see: > > http://www.ripe.net/ipv6 > > As you know this policy is under revision and the current > discussions on these two mailing lists are encouraged. > > All three Regional Internet Registries receive input from their > communities and based on this a new draft of the policy document > will be presented at the upcoming RIPE 40 meeting in Prague. > > The presentation "IPv6 Bootstrap Phase" given at the last RIPE > meeting in Bologna can be found at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentation s/ipv6develop/ A Supernational Registry is a special case. You may want to use this presentation as a starting point to discuss the minimum allocation size. Kind regards, Sabrina Waschke -- o------------------------------------------o | Sabrina Waschke sabrina(a)ripe.net | | Registration Services Operations Manager | | | | RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | | www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | o------------------------------------------o

2 1

Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by Sabrina Waschke 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

James, Your request for a subsequent sub-TLA allocation was evaluated according to the Provisional IPv6 Assignment and Allocation Policy (4.2.5. Criteria for Subsequent Sub-TLA Allocations). Please see: http://www.ripe.net/ipv6 As you know this policy is under revision and the current discussions on these two mailing lists are encouraged. All three Regional Internet Registries receive input from their communities and based on this a new draft of the policy document will be presented at the upcoming RIPE 40 meeting in Prague. The presentation "IPv6 Bootstrap Phase" given at the last RIPE meeting in Bologna can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/ipv6develop/ A Supernational Registry is a special case. You may want to use this presentation as a starting point to discuss the minimum allocation size. Kind regards, Sabrina Waschke -- o------------------------------------------o | Sabrina Waschke sabrina(a)ripe.net | | Registration Services Operations Manager | | | | RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | | www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | o------------------------------------------o

2 1

Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by David Kessens 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

Alain, On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 04:45:24PM +0200, BIDRON Alain BRX/DAP wrote: > > Do we really need to explore solutions again or do we need a new Draft > from the RIRs taking into account those proposals and the consensus > expressed around, and able to be approved by the community ? I think that the problem description is quite clear. I think that it is also clear that a majority of the people would like to have a larger initial allocation. However, it is not clear how big such an allocation should be, whether there should be a uniform size of the initial allocation, whether multi-national registries should be able to get more than one allocation etc. Next, we will also need to take a look at the definition of 80% utilization, when people can come back to the regional registries for more address space and how much address space they will get when they come back and qualify for more address space. It's up to us as the RIPE community to identify these issues and to advise the RIPE NCC on how to fix the current policy. So far, we have done quite a good job in identifying the issues, it's now time to go in more detail in order to define a workable allocation policy. David K. ---

1 0

Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

James, I think we were talking about increasing the size of a sTLA (when the requirement for that can be documented), rather than allocating another sTLA?! Also, I seem to remember that the NCC reserves some space in the address tree for that, so you might be able to obtain a "2nd" sTLA back-to-back with the original one, which is equivalent to decreasing the prefix length. I guess you would be free to structure that (combined/extended) address space internally (for distribution to customers by more than one operational unit). But probably I am missing something essential here. Wilfried. ______________________________________________________________________ Of course, there would be at least one more sub-TLA allocated if the IPv4 rules for supernational registries were to be applied to IPv6 instead of restricting these to only having a single sub-TLA allocation... :-( James -- James Aldridge, Senior Network Engineer (IP Architecture) KPNQwest, Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL Tel: +31 70 379 37 03; GSM: +31 65 370 87 07 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First things first, but not necessarily in that order....

10 15

Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by David R Huberman 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

To: lists-lir-wg-out(a)lists.ripe.net To: James Aldridge <jhma(a)KPNQwest.net> Reply-To: <E15UUhh-0001m9-00(a)aegir.EU.net> > The last reply from the RIPE NCC hostmasters said, "Because Supernational > Registries may not receive multiple IPv6 allocations you would need to have > allocated 80% of the networks in your current sTLA before we could issue more > address space." Please forgive my ignorance and allow me to ask, "where is it written that Supernational Registries may not receive multiple sub-TLAs?" Is this a RIPE NCC interpretation of the bootstrap criteria or is it actually written down somewhere? /david

1 0