May 2003 - lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [lir-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Discussion about RIPE-261
by Hank Nussbacher 26 May '03

26 May '03

At 01:59 PM 25-05-03 -0700, Michel Py wrote: Can you explain "%G Pop."? How is it calculated? I assume it has to do with GDP but please explain the calculation as well as the source of the numbers (the exact UN stats page would help). Needless to say, your numbers do not seem to take in any socio-economic factors. Assigning a /12 to North America as well as to Northern Africa and India might make socialistic sense as well as being "politically correct", but from a reality standpoint, it just don't fly. -Hank >Below is an example interpolated from the work we have done on >geographic assignments: >http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/geov6.txt > >Quick notes: >- We are presently talking about PA space; the document mentioned above >refers to PI space. However the geographic cutoff collapsed to the >country level would not change. > >- I chose to assign a /8 to the entire world, which can be discussed. >This means that after we colonize 255 other planets we have a problem >:-) can someone help me with that warp drive please? > >- What could also be discussed are the details of how this was >generated, but I would like to get the _concept_ across then we can talk >about the details. > >Zone Population %G Pop. IANA >---------------- ---------- ------- -------------- >China 1284971000 20.91% 2346:0000::/11 >Continental Asia 673454413 10.96% 2346:2000::/11 >India 1025096000 16.68% 2346:4000::/12 >Northern Africa 565854163 9.21% 2346:5000::/12 >Asian Islands 488468000 7.95% 2346:6000::/12 >Western Europe 423412058 6.89% 2346:7000::/12 >North America 318243350 5.18% 2346:8000::/12 >South America 350724557 5.71% 2346:9000::/13 >Eastern Europe 307858000 5.01% 2346:9800::/13 >Middle East 258577000 4.21% 2346:A000::/13 >Southern Africa 242566332 3.95% 2346:A800::/13 >Central America 175719760 2.86% 2346:B000::/14 >Oceania 30568053 0.50% 2346:B400::/16 >---------------- ---------- ------- -------------- >World 6145512686 100.00% 2346:0000::/8 > > >Example of one zone: > >Country Population %Z Pop. %G Pop. IANA >------------------- ---------- ------- ------- -------------- >United States 285926000 89.85% 4.65% 2346:8000::/13 >Canada 1015000 9.75% 0.50% 2346:8800::/17 >Hawaii 1224398 0.38% 0.02% 2346:8880::/21 >Bermuda 60000 0.02% 0.00% 2346:8888::/24 >Greenland 12483 0.00% 0.00% 2346:8889::/24 >-------------------- ---------- ------- ------- -------------- >Zone: North America 318243350 100.00% 5.18% 2346:8000::/12 > >Implementing such a system would change the way large(global) LIRs >request space from RIRs. As of today, they would typically request one >/32 per RIR. For people the size of Sprint, they would then have to >request a /32 per country they service and assign space to customers >from the correct prefix. > >What this means to large LIRs is a large initial number of prefixes, but >it's not fundamentally worse than an always-growing number of /32s when >IPv6 finally takes off IMHO. > >For smaller LIRs that service only one country, there would be no >change. > >There would be some impact on the GRT as there would be a "SPRINT-USA" >block, an "ATT-USA" block, a "SPRINT-GERMANY" block, an "ATT-GERMANY" >block, etc. In other words, what we are looking at is one /32 prefix per >country per large LIR, opposed to as many /32s a large LIR would need in >the long run anyway. > >Comments welcome. > > > > - inside that RIR allocation, use the binary chop algorithm > > described in RIPE-261 for the RIR->LIR distribution. > >I'm not familiar with this; would that be something like RFC3531? > >Michel.

1 0

Discussion about RIPE-261
by Gert Doering 23 May '03

23 May '03

Hi, those of you that have been to Barcelona have heard the presentation by Paul Wilson from APNIC concerning the RIPE-261 document. In short, it's a proposal how to reorganize distributing IPv6 allocations "from the root" to the LIRs, fixing the way it's done now (ICANN allocating /23 fragments to the RIRs, and the RIRs having to fill them quite thoroughly, not leaving space for an ISP to grow past a /29). Technically, this is a matter between the RIRs and ICANN, but as this proposal affects routing and filtering as well, it would be useful to have consensus among the members that it's a good thing. So: please read the document (ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-261.txt) and comment on it. Note: this e-mail goes to ipv6-wg and lir-wg, but please don't followup to ipv6-wg - keep all of the discussion in the lir-wg mailing list. Speaking as "me personally" (this is not the official WG chair speaking here, just a concerned IPv6 user!), I have the following comments: - The /23 allocations ICANN -> RIRs are bad, because they lead to address space fragmentation, and the blocks are too small to do useful allocation towards the LIRs. Something NEEDS to be changed here. - Nevertheless, I do NOT like the idea of a "common address pool". People want to be able to see the "region" that a prefix is coming from by looking at the address. This is working fine now in v4 (except for the swamp and part of ERX) and in the so-far IPv6 allocations (except that due to the /23s it's getting messy), but would be broken by the CAP. - As a technical reason: people want to be able to filter IPv6 prefixes by region, like "I only have one uplink that provides me with US connectivity, so there's no need to carry any US prefixes in my routing table, I just point a summary down that line". This is not yet done, but I am convinced that we shouldn't break routing hierarchy without good need. - If people *really* go into "multiple /48s per site" multihoming, source address selection works by doing a longest-match check, and this will work better if same-region addresses have something like a common prefix, instead of "everythins smeared everywhere". So my personal recommendation would be: - change the /23 allocation boundary ICANN -> RIR to something more useful, like a /12 or so (a /12 means "512 of them are available, so we're not yet burning bridges - but a /8 would work as well. A /16 is already somewhat tight). - every RIR still gets its own allocation from where RIR->LIR allocations are taken - inside that RIR allocation, use the binary chop algorithm described in RIPE-261 for the RIR->LIR distribution. So - let the discussion start now! Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54837 (54495) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

2 1

Autoreply: [lir-wg] Discussion about RIPE-261
by webmaster＠keyworld.net 23 May '03

23 May '03

Hi, I am out of the office till the 9th of June 2003. --> If you have a technical issue please send an e-mail to support(a)keyworld.net. --> If you have a query on the Vegastream products please send an e-mail to sales(a)keyworld.net. --> If you have a query on website hosting or require changes to one currently hosted with us please contact Mr. Alton Costa on email alton(a)keyworld.net Thank you for choosing KeyWORLD as your communications partner. Best Regards, Christian Ransley B.Sc. Web & Technical Services Manager Keyworld Ltd. UB42, Industrial Zone San Gwann SGN 09 Tel: (+356) 2540 2540 Fax: (+356) 2540 9999 Email: webmaster(a)keyworld.net Website: http://www.keyworld.net

1 0

AW: [lir-wg] Problems with route object update
by Marcus.Ruchti＠colt.de 23 May '03

23 May '03

that's true, I've made the same experiences. Mostly we request an own maintainer for a customer when we request a new PI network, but the majority of the users hasn't the knowledge or they don't want to build up knowledge to create or to update the RIPE database... Marcus -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Sebastien Lahtinen [mailto:md@ncuk.net] Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 22. Mai 2003 15:20 An: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: RE: [lir-wg] Problems with route object update On Thu, 22 May 2003, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > >but if it was not an option for the LIR to be maintainer of the > >customers PI assignment (end user mandatory maintainer) it would solve > >the problem. > > 2 problems here: > > - the LIR has to "donate" its resources to apply for the PI block with > the NCC. So there may be a reason (in some cases) for protecting the > object with the LIR's maintainer; > > - in our case (for customers with legacy addresses) we have an agreement > in place to jointly manage and protect the inetnum objects. Some may > even choose to have us do that as a service. > For that reason, blocking this would be undesirable from my point of > view. I couldn't agree more. We've done PI for clients on their own maintainer if that's what they want, but creating extra maintainers "for the sake of it" seems pointless because half the PI users may not understand how to use their maintainer anyway! Sebastien. --- NetConnex Broadband Ltd. tel. +44 870 745 4830 fax. +44 870 745 4831 Court Farm Lodge, 1 Eastway, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8SG. United Kingdom.

2 1

Problems with route object update
by Marcus.Ruchti＠colt.de 22 May '03

22 May '03

Hi all, I've recognized that we have massive problems in the last weeks with RIPE database updates by other ISP's. e.g. a new customer wants that we will announce a PI network used by him but it is maintained by another LIR. I've asked for creating a route object with our maintainer several times without success. I think all this happens with intention to constrain the business activity of the competitor ! Is there a possibility to insert the RIPE-NONE Maintainer in the whole PI blocks (e.g. /16). In this step I won't mention the names of those ISP's... regards, Marcus Ruchti COLT Telecom GmbH

3 4

RE: [lir-wg] Problems with route object update
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 22 May '03

22 May '03

>> We recommend that End Users maintain their PI inetnum themselves if they >> want to do so. However, they are free to have their provider maintain it >> for them if they want that, instead. > >Yes, I understand, the problem is if the LIR decides not to inform the >customer of this option, This sounds like a business relation (ethics?) issue, rather than a registry or database issue. >but if it was not an option for the LIR to be >maintainer of the customers PI assignment (end user mandatory maintainer) it >would solve the problem. 2 problems here: - the LIR has to "donate" its resources to apply for the PI block with the NCC. So there may be a reason (in some cases) for protecting the object with the LIR's maintainer; - in our case (for customers with legacy addresses) we have an agreement in place to jointly manage and protect the inetnum objects. Some may even choose to have us do that as a service. For that reason, blocking this would be undesirable from my point of view. Wilfried. _________________________________:_____________________________________ 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

Archives of LIR WG sessions available
by Gert Doering 15 May '03

15 May '03

Hi LIR WG readers, for those of you that are not aware of it already: the LIR WG meeting yesterday was recorded and is now available online, via the following URLs: mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe45/lir-1.wmv mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe45/lir-2.wmv (visible via windows media player and mplayer under Linux) regards, Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54495 (54267) 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

RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Webcast RIPE 45 Announcement
by matthew.ford＠bt.com 13 May '03

13 May '03

Could whoever is operating the camera please drink less coffee..... just point the thing at the screen and be done with it .... I'm getting motion sickness ;-) Mat -----Original Message----- From: RIPE NCC Meeting Registration [mailto:meeting@ripe.net] Sent: Tue 13/05/2003 14:50 To: local-ir(a)ripe.net; ripe-list(a)ripe.net; ripecast(a)ripe.net; lir-wg(a)ripe.net; routing-wg(a)ripe.net; db-wg(a)ripe.net; ipmt-dev(a)ripe.net; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Cc: meeting(a)ripe.net Subject: [ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net] Webcast RIPE 45 Announcement Dear Colleages, Please note that several sessions at RIPE 45 are being webcast. These sessions include the following: - - EOF - - Routing Working Group - - LIR Working Group - - Tools Working Group - - The RIPE NCC Services BoF - - IPv6 Working Group - - Database Working Group - - Plenary To see the meeting in real time, please use one of the following URLs. As we have limited bandwith to the meeting venue, we ask that you choose a server that is physically closer to you: - - RIPE Meeting Attendees only: mms://webcast.ripemtg.ripe.net/ripemtg - - Spain Mirror: mms://media.rediris.es/ripelive - - Portugal Mirror: mms://wms.fccn.pt/ripelive - - Italy Mirror: mms://stream1-wg.cineca.it/ripelive - - Denmark Mirror: mms://wmslave.fsknet.dk/ripelive - - Czech Republic Mirror: mms://server1.streaming.cesnet.cz/ripemtg - - United Kingdom Mirror: mms://ccs-web2k.brynmill.swan.ac.uk/ripelive - - Netherlands Mirror: mms://stream-ripe.wind.surfnet.nl/ripelive - - Amsterdam Mirror (RIPE NCC Office): mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripemtg Please note that the webcastings are technical trials only and the broadcasts should not be regarded as an official implementation of a webcasting service. More information on the webcastings with detailed instructions can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-45/webcast.html We welcome your feedback on these trials. Please send your comments to <ripecast(a)ripe.net>. Regards, RIPE Meeting Coordination Team

1 0

Webcast RIPE 45 Announcement
by RIPE NCC Meeting Registration 13 May '03

13 May '03

Dear Colleages, Please note that several sessions at RIPE 45 are being webcast. These sessions include the following: - - EOF - - Routing Working Group - - LIR Working Group - - Tools Working Group - - The RIPE NCC Services BoF - - IPv6 Working Group - - Database Working Group - - Plenary To see the meeting in real time, please use one of the following URLs. As we have limited bandwith to the meeting venue, we ask that you choose a server that is physically closer to you: - - RIPE Meeting Attendees only: mms://webcast.ripemtg.ripe.net/ripemtg - - Spain Mirror: mms://media.rediris.es/ripelive - - Portugal Mirror: mms://wms.fccn.pt/ripelive - - Italy Mirror: mms://stream1-wg.cineca.it/ripelive - - Denmark Mirror: mms://wmslave.fsknet.dk/ripelive - - Czech Republic Mirror: mms://server1.streaming.cesnet.cz/ripemtg - - United Kingdom Mirror: mms://ccs-web2k.brynmill.swan.ac.uk/ripelive - - Netherlands Mirror: mms://stream-ripe.wind.surfnet.nl/ripelive - - Amsterdam Mirror (RIPE NCC Office): mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripemtg Please note that the webcastings are technical trials only and the broadcasts should not be regarded as an official implementation of a webcasting service. More information on the webcastings with detailed instructions can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-45/webcast.html We welcome your feedback on these trials. Please send your comments to <ripecast(a)ripe.net>. Regards, RIPE Meeting Coordination Team

4 3

Allocation Editor
by Augustas Gutautas 09 May '03

09 May '03

Hello, is there a possibility to add an additional mnt-lower attribute in an allocation inetnum object through lirportal`s Allocation Editor? Can`t I find this or should RIPE-NCC team add it? -- Augustas Gutautas UAB "Baltnetos komunikacijos" Galvydžio g. 5, Vilnius Tel. 2745444 Fax. 2745440 Mob. 8614 63487 http://www.balt.net

4 4