- lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Summary: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
by Mirjam Kuehne 19 Sep '01

19 Sep '01

Dear LIR-WG, Here is an attempt to summarise the recent discussions on this mailing list regarding possible fixed size assignments. Following a review of the comments, it looks like the majority does not believe that a special assignment policy is needed. Most contributors agreed that there is no need to make a distinction in policy relating to different access methods. All assignments should be made on actual needs and according to the current IP address policies. The comments showed concerns about the administrative procedures required for these kinds of assignments. However, it was felt that these addresses need to be accounted for in some way. A possible way forward would be to initiate discussion surrounding the set of information necessary to justify these assignments while providing an efficient way for the LIRs to provide services to their customers. I realise that I did not touch on every aspect of the discussion but I hope that this is a fair summary in order for you to move forward Looking forward to a continuation of this debate. Best Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

3 2

OPS-NM interim meeting before RIPE-40
by Randy Bush 17 Sep '01

17 Sep '01

[ bert has asked me to repost ] Howdy, At the last two IETF OPS Area Open meetings, we had some good discussion between the OPS NM folk and some operators. We also have had a so called OPS-NM Interim in the USA that was co-located with NANOG in May of this year. We also called it something like: Net Management Protocol Folk & Net Operators - Reality Check #2 We will have another IETF Interim Meeting for the OPS-AREA Network Management people, this time in Europe, co-located with the next RIPE-NCC meeting. The idea is to meet with another set of operators to try and understand their needs and to explain to them how we think that our NM related work in the IETF can help them to manage their networks. In other words: Net Management Protocol Folk & Net Operators - Reality Check #3 We probably will have similar sessions in the future to meet with people who operate enterprise networks, because their requirements may be different. We are still working on the agenda, however below you will find a prelimenary agenda proposal. Any suggestions should be sent to Randy (randy(a)psg.com) and Bert (bwijnen(a)lucent.com) We have limited space for this meeting. Those who plan to attend, pls send a short email to Bert Wijnen <bwijnen(a)lucent.com> to let us know. Pls add a few lines as to why you want to participate. Discussion has been occurring since May on the mailing list ops-nm(a)ops.ietf.org, which is normal internet-style. And a web-based archive is at <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/ops-nm/>. Bert and Randy -------------- OPS-NM Interim Meeting details ------------------ The plan is to have this meeting co-located with the next RIPE NCC meeting, namely RIPE 40. That means: Oct 1st OPS-NM Interim from 2-5pm Oct 2nd OPS-NM Interim from 9am-noon Oct 2-5 RIPE 40. Starts at 2pm on oct 2nd. RIPE 40 and OPS-NM Interim will be in the Prague Congress Centre in Prague, Czech Republic. For RIPE 40 and hotel registration, pls visit: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/current/ripe-40/ There is a whole range of hotels to choose from, but it is very hard to book, so do it now. Those only participating in the OPS-NM meeting are not required to pay the RIPE meeting fee. Of course, if you want to take the opportunity to participate in the RIPE-NCC meeting, then you should register for that meeting via the web page listed above. Those who plan to attend the OPS-NM Interim should send an email to Bert Wijnen <bwijnen(a)lucent.com> because we only have limited room, and if too many people want to show up we may have to tell some that there is no more space. Prelimenary Agenda ------------------ - Agenda bashing and intro - Summary of the current set of OPS requirements draft-ops-operator-req-mgmt-00.txt Please read this document to prepare for the meeting. If this one no longer exists, then pls check for a possible revision 01.txt. It is important to try and figure out if this also represents needs of European operators, or do they have different/new/additional requirements? - Discussion of the above. - Discussion of SNMP, MIBs, COPS, POLICY and such - how do the developers of these protocols/specs think that they can address operator NM requirments. - what do operators think about that - what kind of positive or negative expoerience do operators have - Operator requirements - what are the real hot issues to be solved this year - what are the constraints within which the tools have to work - Next steps - Wrapup/Summary -30-

1 0

Re: on the question of 'right to maintainership'
by Daniel Karrenberg 17 Sep '01

17 Sep '01

[personal opinion, since I saw no replies yet and I think this deserves one] A LIR is responsible for the registration of address space assignments from address space allocations it receives from the RIPE NCC. From this alone it follows that a LIR may reserve the right to make changes to these registrations. Of course the LIR should be responsive to requests for changes. This does not mean that it has to make any change requested. Changes should be goverened by a local policy. Daniel PS: Technically speaking you can have multiple maintainers on an object that all have equal rights. So if you trust someone you can let them make their own changes while keeping the possibility to make changes yourself. The right notify options will make sure you know abut changes. Beware: Technically speaking one of these maintainers can remove the other, albeit not without the other noticing if notifications are configured right.

1 0

RE: NCC#2001039519 expecting reply X-NCC RegID: nl.ignite
by kevin.bates＠bt.com 14 Sep '01

14 Sep '01

Thanks to all for the advice, comments, suggestions. I've got the approval kevin > -----Original Message----- > > Greetings All > > Apologies to the large number of people who will receive this email > unnecessarily. But I have a problem getting a response from the Ripe > hostmaster re an ongoing address approval. > > I tried writing to lir-help(a)ripe.net but also with no response, see the > mail > attached. > The ticketing system shows I am expecting a reply. > > Is there anything else I can do to speed up the process (apart from > getting > on a plane to Amsterdam) as this is now getting to the critical stage? > > Is anybody else having this problem? > > any advice gratefully received > > thanks > > kevin bates > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bates,KR,Kevin,IWO24 BATESKR R > > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 3:14 PM > > To: 'lir-help(a)ripe.net' > > Subject: NCC#2001039519 expecting reply X-NCC RegID: nl.ignite > > > > Greetings help > > > > On 31 July a hostmaster (Leo Vegoda) wrote to me re NCC#2001039519. > > ". > > . > > Thanks for providing all that detail. I've had a look at it does seem > > fine. Can you confirm which netname you want an approval for? I'll send > > you an approval straight away, then > > . > > ." > > > > > > I provided the netname the same day > > ". > > . > > network BT-ICH-AMS-UTR > > . > > ." > > > > On 14 August not having received a response, i mailed hostmaster asking > > what was happening. Got an acknowledgement but still no approval. > > > > > > As of today the i still haven't had any further communication from the > > hostmaster. > > Can you let me know what is happening and if i still need to supply more > > information and what information is required. > > > > thanks > > kevin > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

FW: NCC#2001039519 expecting reply X-NCC RegID: nl.ignite
by kevin.bates＠bt.com 14 Sep '01

14 Sep '01

Greetings All Apologies to the large number of people who will receive this email unnecessarily. But I have a problem getting a response from the Ripe hostmaster re an ongoing address approval. I tried writing to lir-help(a)ripe.net but also with no response, see the mail attached. The ticketing system shows I am expecting a reply. Is there anything else I can do to speed up the process (apart from getting on a plane to Amsterdam) as this is now getting to the critical stage? Is anybody else having this problem? any advice gratefully received thanks kevin bates > -----Original Message----- > From: Bates,KR,Kevin,IWO24 BATESKR R > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 3:14 PM > To: 'lir-help(a)ripe.net' > Subject: NCC#2001039519 expecting reply X-NCC RegID: nl.ignite > > Greetings help > > On 31 July a hostmaster (Leo Vegoda) wrote to me re NCC#2001039519. > ". > . > Thanks for providing all that detail. I've had a look at it does seem > fine. Can you confirm which netname you want an approval for? I'll send > you an approval straight away, then > . > ." > > > I provided the netname the same day > ". > . > network BT-ICH-AMS-UTR > . > ." > > On 14 August not having received a response, i mailed hostmaster asking > what was happening. Got an acknowledgement but still no approval. > > > As of today the i still haven't had any further communication from the > hostmaster. > Can you let me know what is happening and if i still need to supply more > information and what information is required. > > thanks > kevin > > > > > > >

2 1

RE: Draft: Charter & Call for paticipation RIPE-185bis
by paul.mylotte＠bt.com 11 Sep '01

11 Sep '01

Hans Petter I would be very happy to contribute and participate in the editorial team as soon as possible. Regards, Paul p.s I find it a bit difficult to follow the dates you give below P. S. Mylotte BTexact Technologies Adastral Park 01473 606333 / + 44 1473 606333 paul.mylotte(a)bt.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Hans Petter Holen [SMTP:hph@online.no] > Sent: 07 September 2001 22:56 > To: Hans Petter Holen; lir-wg > Cc: woeber; Gert Doering; azucena.hernandez; stephenb > Subject: Re: Draft: Charter & Call for paticipation RIPE-185bis > > | Please indicate your interest to participate in this editorial team to > me > or > | to the list. > > Up to date I have had the following voulenteers: > Wilfried Woeber > Gert Doering > Azucena Hernandez > Stephen Bruey > and Myself. > > | Please suggest improvements to the mandate to the list. > | > | Proposed mandate: > | > | Facilitate discussion on the lir-wg mailing list and working group > meetings > | and summarise the community consensus. > | Ensure that the community consensus on what IP addressing policies is to > be > | in the RIPE NCC service region is documented in a concise and simple > | language. > > I have had one suggestion to extend the mandate: > - Try to achieve allignemet between the IP addressing policies in the RIPE > NCC region and in the other regions to the maximum extent possible. > > | Proposed Timeline: > | > | 2208 Call for participation > | 2908 First draft to be published based on RIPE 185 discussion at > mailinglist > | 0509 Formation of the group, freeze mandate > | > | 1002 1st workshop > | 1003 discussion at lir-wg meeting > | 1004 2nd workshop > | > | 1015 Second draft to be published > | > | Note that this timeline is quite agressive, and that it suggests that we > do > | quite a bit of work at the upcoming RIPE meeting. I do however belive > that > | this timeline is relatively realistic. In my oppinion it is better to > revise > | this timeline. > > We are slightly behind the schedule, but there should still be ample time > to > read and comment on the draft recently posted by Nurani. > > --- > Hans Petter Holen, Technical Manager > Tiscali, Norway, +47 24 11 26 44 mobile: +47 99 21 76 70 fax:+47 24 11 24 > 11 >

2 1

draft agendas (v1) for IPv6/lir/eix joint sessions RIPE40
by David Kessens 10 Sep '01

10 Sep '01

Hi, Below follow the first drafts of the agendas for the joint sessions regarding ipv6 allocation policies. We have asked to schedule two seperate sessions, one for discussions regarding the new interim policy for exchange points, and one for discussions regarding the revision of the general allocation guidelines. We would like to limit discussion to the lir-wg maillist to minimize the amount of duplicate mails. Please let me know if you have any other topics that you want to have discussed and we will try to accomodate them in the agenda. Thanks, David K. --- Agenda for the IPv6/lir joint session RIPE40, Prague Topic: Revision of the general ipv6 allocation guidelines Materials to read: - ripe-196: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html - http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/ipv6develop… - http://www.djp.net/ipv6/proposal.html - http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/RIPE39-IPv6… A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing B. How to proceed for the next iteration of the policy. C. Status of the draft currently being discussed between the RIRs (Presentations from RIRs) D. Proposal for the next version of the policy http://www.djp.net/ipv6/proposal.html (Dave Pratt) E. Discussion Z. AOB ------------------------- Agenda for the IPv6/lir/eix joint session RIPE40, Prague Topic: Interim policy for allocation of ipv6 addresses for Internet Exchange Points A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing B. How to proceed for the next iteration of the policy. C. Selection of most important issues that we want to discuss during this session: - how to proceed from the interim policy ?!? - default /64 or /48 allocation size - do we want to have this space allocated from a special block, may be even block that is used by all RIRs for this purpose - what documentation is needed to get an allocation - is there any need to document allocations in the RIPE database, and if so, how ?!? - general wording of the policy D. Discussion of the issues Z. AOB ---

1 0

RE: MIR proposal
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 10 Sep '01

10 Sep '01

Stephen, >Ok the proposal. 2 brief questions, the 2nd one might be pretty stupid, actually: 1) do I correctly read (between the lines) that you would be prepared to renumber into a properly sized new block? 2) would your IGP-problem, at least in theory, be solvable by braking the AS into a number of smaller ASs, say roughly along the lines of your address blocks per registry? Thanks, Wilfried

2 1

Exchange point interim policy
by David Kessens 10 Sep '01

10 Sep '01

The final date for comments on the proposed interim policy for ipv6 address allocations for Internet exchange points has passed. Since posting the interim conclusions, the direction of the discussion has not fundamentally changed. Therefore, we believe that we can ask the RIPE NCC to publish the proposed policy now, to clearly mark it as an interim policy and to start making the first allocations (with /64 allocations made out of fully reserved /48's and all allocations made out of one common block of address space). We would like to emphasize that this is the first version of the policy. It's pretty clear from the discussions on the list that though the policy is approved, there are still some issues that need more discussion. It looks like that many people felt that it was more important to get a policy in place rather sooner than later despite that they might not agree with all details in the policy. We have asked the RIPE NCC to reserve a slot at the next RIPE meeting to discuss the remaining issues and make recommendations to the RIPE NCC for improvements to the interim policy. Issues that we currently have on our list include: - how to proceed from the interim policy ?!? - default /64 or /48 allocation size - do we want to have this space allocated from a special block, may be even block that is used by all RIRs for this purpose - what documentation is needed to get an allocation - is there any need to document allocations in the RIPE database, and if so, how ?!? - general wording of the policy Don't hesitate to contact us if you want to have other issues discussed as well. For discussions on the maillist, we suggest that you post your mail only to the lir-wg list. Thanks, Fearghas McKay David Kessens EIX-WG Chair IPv6 wg Chair ---

1 0

a Proposal to replacing RIPE 185
by Hans Petter Holen 07 Sep '01

07 Sep '01

Dear Working Group. Last year we set up the 17th of May task force to help the RIPE NCC identify potential improvements to the handeling of requests sent to hostmaster(a)ripe.net. May of theese have been implemented with success. The continuing growth of the number of LIRs does however call for other meassures to be taken. One of the suggestions by the task force and by the RIPE NCC hostmasters was to improve the IP address request form. A fruther analysis of the underlying problems seems to indicate that the shortcomings of the form is merely a symptom. There are clear indications that the whole policy and procedure document, RIPE 185, would benefit from an overhaul. After studying this document which was created when CIRD was still young and unknow to large parts of our community, we have found that it cotains a lot of usefull information, which is strictly speaking not Policies or Procedures. Rewriten in a clearer and more concise way we may archive a much better common understanding between the individual LIRs and the RIPE NCCC hostmasters. Our hypothesis is therefore that by creating a new strucure for documenting policy and procedures with better examples, and work on clearifying the language in the policy statements the work load of the RIPE NCC hostmasters may be reduced drasticaly. This is due to the fact that for a large propotion of the requests handeled by the RNH's there is lacking information the NRH's. By making it clear to the LIRs that it is the LIRs responsibility to request from the customer and make sure all relevant information is in the application before it is submittet to the RNH, we belive the total time spent, both by RNH's, and by LIR staff will be significantly reduced. We have therefor proposed the following structure for a replacement of RIPE 185: "Addressing Policies and Procedures for the RIPE NCC service region" (Abstract, Introduction, Scope) Internet Address Space and the Internet Registry System Policy framework Policies Glossary References Appendices (bitboundary chart, examples etc) Remove the following sections: All instructions on how to fill out an IP or ASN request form (in separate "supporting notes" ripe docs) PA vs PI (Is described in ripe-127) RIPE NCC RS (mailboxes, ticketing system, robot etc) (Instructions on website) Inaddr procedures (policy to be left in) (separate ripe doc will be created) Routing considerations Our proposal is that the RIPE NCC will present a first draft by doing the ground work on the document, re-writing some sections in a more clear and concise manner. This will then be presented to the lir-wg and the editorial committe for comments and input. We also belive that there is a strong need to publish all policy changes as RIPE document. If there is a need to reduce the administrative overhead of changing the procedures and policies document for every policy document, the changes and amenedments could be made in a single (not more than one at a time !) "Amendments to Policies and procedures. I have spent some days with Nurani and Sabrina at the RIPE NCC and discussed various ways to do this, and our proposal is to form a RIPE-185bis editorial team to facilitate discussion on the lir-wg mailing list and working group meetings and summarise the community consensus. ----- Hans Petter Holen, http://hph.home.online.no Phone: +47 40 20 39 16, Stalsberggt 28 B, 2010 Strømmen, Norway

1 2