- lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

APNIC New IPv6 address block
by John Tran 14 Jan '03

14 Jan '03

Dear colleagues APNIC received the IPv6 address range 2001:0E00::/23 from IANA in January 2003 and will be making allocations from this range in the near future. Please configure your routing filters accordingly. For more information on the resources administered by APNIC, see: http://www.apnic.net/db/ranges.html For information on the minimum allocation sizes within address ranges administered by APNIC, see: http://www.apnic.net/db/ranges.html For information on the minimum allocation sizes within address ranges administered by APNIC, see: http://www.apnic.net/db/min-alloc.html Kind regards Son ____________________________________________________________________ Resources Services Manager <Son(a)apnic.net> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre phone: +61 7 3858 3100 http://www.apnic.net fax: +61 7 3858 3199 Helpdesk phone: +61 7 3858 3188 email: helpdesk(a)apnic.net Please send Internet Resource Requests to <hostmaster(a)apnic.net> _____________________________________________________________________ * APNIC-ANNOUNCE: Announcements concerning APNIC * * To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apnic-announce-request(a)apnic.net * * APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request(a)apnic.net *

1 0

Name of the LIR WG
by Denesh Bhabuta 10 Jan '03

10 Jan '03

Hi I am sure we all agree that this Working Group is an "open forum where RIPE policy is made". However this is not immediately obvious from the name Local Internet Registry Working Group (LIR WG). There seem to be a couple of apparent problems... 1) The Purpose of the working group is not clear - mainly to newcomers, but also to others. 2) non-LIRs most likely have the impression that the Working Group is not open to them even though it is open to anyone with rational argument. Thus a proposal is to change the name of this working group to "Policy WG" or similar.. if only to remove any implications of the WG being a closed shop. This would also make it clear as to what the WG deals with. So - any comments? Please start a discussion on this in time for the upcoming meeting in Amsterdam where we hope there will be a consensus on this matter. Regards Denesh

11 14

[aso-council] ICANN Quarterly Report to U.S. Department of Commerce (fwd)
by Hans Petter Holen 10 Jan '03

10 Jan '03

------------ Forwarded Message ------------ Date: 9. januar 2003 18:26 -0800 From: "M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn(a)icann.org> To: ASO Council <aso-council(a)aso.icann.org> Cc: vint cerf <vcerf(a)MCI.NET> Subject: [aso-council] ICANN Quarterly Report to U.S. Department of Commerce The amendment signed last September to the Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Department of Commerce requires ICANN to submit a quarterly progress report detailing our accomplishments towards fulfilling the requirements of that amendment. The report covering the period from the signing of the amendment through December 31, 2002 has been submitted and can be found at http://www.icann.org/general/status-report-08jan03.htm. The report highlights not just all that has been done towards achieving the reform of ICANN, but also the significant progress that has been made in many other important areas. I would like to thank each of you for all of your support and dedicated efforts towards both the reform efforts and some of these other areas of accomplishment. Without your voluntary commitment of your precious time, none of this would have been possible. With best wishes for 2003 and for continuing collaborations! Stuart -- __________________ Stuart Lynn President and CEO ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: 310-823-9358 Fax: 310-823-8649 Email: lynn(a)icann.org * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-council * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-council-request(a)aso.icann.org * ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------

1 0

Re: [lir-wg] Name of the LIR WG
by Hans Petter Holen 08 Jan '03

08 Jan '03

--On 8. januar 2003 17:40 +0100 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net> wrote: | | "Registration Policies and Procedures WG" repop-wg ? To add the global perspective: ARIN: IP Allocations Policies Working Group policy(a)arin.net APNIC: Address Policy SIG LACNIC: Politicas -- Lista de discucion de politicas del LACNIC The main works have been named: ripe-246 IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy ripe-245 Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies and Procedures ripe-244 Policy for Reverse Address Delegation under in-addr.arpa in the RIPE NCC Service Region ripe-234 IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies in the RIPE NCC Service Region ripe-127 Provider Independent vs Provider Aggregatable Address Space So so far we have not used the term Registration Policy. I also feel that the game is about how have an address assigned, not how to register the address of my preference. Maybe IP address Policies and Procedures WG: iapp-wg or simply address Policies and Procedures: app-wg But I somehow feel this is just making more cryptic abreviations not adding transparencey to the name. -hph

1 1

Re: [lir-wg] Name of the LIR WG
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 08 Jan '03

08 Jan '03

Hi Daniel, Gert et.al.! IF we really consider changing things, after a _very_ careful review (I hope), I'd have a strong pref to do it in coordination with the other RIRs' constituencies. >Hi, > >On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 05:40:56PM +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >> "Registration Policies and Procedures WG" repop-wg ? > >I'm not sure whether people will understand "repop-wg" better than >"lir-wg" :-) > >What about "policy-wg"? "policy" -- policy? what (Internet Content ;-) ?? The best thing I can think of at the moment is sort of copying from the APNIC region, ie. [IP] Address Policy SIG. Which (from an ICANN/ASO point of view) still misses the routing identifier issue, somewhat, and/or potentially starts to pull the Routing-WG into the boat as well. And we should be very careful to not _add_ to the confusion in this process, with - policy being the "open-ness" thingy where everyone is welcome and a consensus and/or resource accessibility and distribution decision should be worked out, and - defining the procedures, which should ultimately remain the responsibilty of the NCC and the LIRs in th end, although everyone should still be welcome to observe and contribute as much as possible. We should think pretty careful about - "policy development" for IPv[46] Addresses and Routing Identifiers, - "LIR <-> RIR procedure definitions" and, in the end, - "funding agreement". >Gert Doering > -- NetMaster Food for thought, Wilfried.

1 0

RE: [lir-wg] Name of the LIR WG
by paul.mylotte＠bt.com 08 Jan '03

08 Jan '03

I tend to favour the official title of "IP Addressing Policy" WG, which can then be abbreviated to the informal "Policy" WG if necessary Paul -----Original Message----- From: Peter Galbavy [mailto:peter.galbavy@knowtion.net] Sent: 08 January 2003 16:50 To: Gert Doering; Axel Pawlik; Denesh Bhabuta; lir-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Name of the LIR WG > I'm not sure whether people will understand "repop-wg" better than > "lir-wg" :-) > > What about "policy-wg"? There appears to be a focus of 'RIPE is the members' so why not 'ripe-wg' ? Peter

1 0

New Draft Document
by RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service 08 Jan '03

08 Jan '03

New RIPE Draft Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new draft document is available from the RIPE document store. Draft: IPv4 Sub-allocations Made by Local Internet Registries Operating within the RIPE NCC Service Region Short content description ------------------------- This document specifies the RIPE community policies on allocations made by Local Internet Registries (LIRs) within the unicast IPv4 address space. The draft document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/sub-allocations.html The deadline for comments on this draft document will be accepted up to and including 29 January 2003. After incorporating any suggested changes to the document, the final document will be published as a RIPE Document. All comments and suggestions should be sent to <lir-wg(a)ripe.net>. Kind Regards, Jeroen Bet RIPE NCC Webmaster

1 0

Recent Board Meeting
by Axel Pawlik 07 Jan '03

07 Jan '03

Dear all, I want to take this opportunity to wish you a very Happy and Successful New Year! ... and to quickly inform you that the Executive Board of the RIPE NCC met on 16 December 2002. During the meeting a number of issues that were brought up on this mailing list some weeks ago were discussed. A major focal point was on easing members' participation in the annual General Meeting of the association. Various possibilities ranging from electronic voting to moving the date of the meeting were considered. Another topic was the presentation of budget lines in documents like the Annual Report and Activity Plan, as well as possible improvements to the current Charging Scheme. No final decisions have been taken yet, as a substantial amount of further discussions and preparations are expected. I will present more details, and give an outlook onto the RIPE NCC actions in the coming year, during the plenary at the upcoming RIPE Meeting. kind regards, hope to see you in Amsterdam, Axel

1 0

ripe allocation 82.0.0.0/8 and arin allocation 69.0.0.0/8
by Joe Baptista 03 Jan '03

03 Jan '03

ARIN recently released blocks from the 69.0.0.0/8 which are causing numerous problems with routing in this block. Some 200 blocks have been issued from 69.0.0.0/8 and i've spoken with at least 15 operators who have complained. I understand the 82.0.0.0/8 block suffers from the same problem. From what I can see RIPE has not yet issued any netblocks from this pool. If RIPE does issues blocks from this pool will RIPE take back the IP if it enconters the same problems or will RIPE follow the ARIN approach of no returns even though ARIN and RIPE are aware of the frustration it is causing. Some operators I have spoken with in 69/8 have suffered damage to thier business operations. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communications & Computing Facility a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited

8 9

RE: [lir-wg] ripe allocation 82.0.0.0/8 and arin allocation 69.0. 0.0/8
by Sweeting, John 02 Jan '03

02 Jan '03

None of the RIR's are going to tell me what routes I will accept or filter in my network.....as simple as that. If I am filtering out networks that my customers wish to get to then that will be fixed as soon as a ticet is opened by them. Also, what is with the "...you boys..." remarks. -----Original Message----- From: Joe Baptista To: leo vegoda Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net Sent: 1/2/03 7:18 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] ripe allocation 82.0.0.0/8 and arin allocation 69.0.0.0/8 On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, leo vegoda wrote: > The RIPE NCC can not guarantee whether any particular route will > be accepted by any network operator. Thats a problem. Question - if one of your customers discovers that an allocation does not route can they have it replaced with one that does. I understand you don't guarantee any particular allocation will route. And in the old days when the charges were minimal for IP allocation - well one could reluctantly accept that. However - under the new policies you boys are charging these people hefty bucks and that means liability and I don't think it prudent to hide behind the routing claim. I have documented over 15 cases in which the 69.0.0.0/8 fiasco has cost these people clients and business that went elsewhere. Have also documented situations in which these recent allocation have resulted in the renumbering of networks out of 69.0.0.0/8 allocations into arpa that works. So you see I think it prudent that there be a policy to allow for returns and replacement of arpa. I don't think you boys should be issuing numbers when you are aware that they don't work and are causing people financial problems to their business operations. So if you do get complaints regarding 82.0.0.0/8 - do you intend to make sure your customers get network that work - or will RIPE be following the ARIN lead and just let these people hang. regards joe baptista

1 0