RIPE-address-policy-wg@May 7, 2009

Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 14:15:03 +0200
Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 PI assignment statistics

Dear Colleagues,

During the Address Policy Working Group session at RIPE58, statistics
were requested about the number and size of IPv4 PI prefixes that the
RIPE NCC has assigned over the last few years.

NOTE: The numbers for 2009 contain data up to May 2009.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
/16 0 1 0 0 1
/17 0 1 1 0 0
/18 1 2 3 10 1
/19 3 7 4 12 7
/20 25 28 23 44 14
/21 51 56 89 100 26
/22 260 261 261 402 111
/23 385 464 778 571 159
/24 726 897 973 1046 292
/25 10 22 8 8 5
/26 7 6 8 5 0
/27 5 8 7 7 2
/28 0 8 0 1 0
/29 2 1 0 8 0

Total 1475 1762 2155 2214 618

Please let us know if you require any further information.

Best regards,

Alex Le Heux
RIPE NCC


欧州地域でのプロバイダ非依存IPv4アドレス割当ての状況についての報告。
/25以下も結構あるけど、何に使っているんだろうか。使えているんだろうか。

RIPE-address-policy-wg@May 6, 2009

Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 11:22:53 +0200
Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE NCC Now Accepting Requests for IPv6 PI Assignments

[Apologies for duplicate emails.]

Dear Colleagues,

We are pleased to announce that the RIPE NCC now accept requests for
IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) assignments.

This follows the accepted policy proposal 2006-01 "Provider Independent
(PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations".

The request form and supporting notes are available from the RIPE
Document Store at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6.html

Requests can also be made via the LIR Portal, which is available at:
https://lirportal.ripe.net/

IPv6 PI assignments will come from reserved block 2001:678::/29. You may
want to update your filters.

Regards,

Scott Donald

Registration Services
RIPE NCC


RIPE地域ではIPv6のPI(Provider非依存)アドレスの要望を受け入れ始めました。
IPv6で未来永劫リナンバしたくないよ、という方はRIPE NCCメンバーになってリクエストするといいですよ。

RIPE-address-policy-wg@Apr 20, 2009

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:18:52 +0200
Subject: [address-policy-wg] New Document available: RIPE-465

Dear Colleagues,

The mention of 0.8 as the HD ratio (in two occurrences) in ripe-450 is an error.

In RIPE, the HD ratio for IPv6 has been set at 0.94 since November 2007 and was documented correctly in the previous IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (ripe-421).

We have corrected the error and published an updated document (ripe-465) that you can find at:

http://test-www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-465.html

We apologise for any confusion this may have caused and will put in place additional checks to prevent similar errors in the future

Kind Regards

Adrian Bedford
Web Services Team Leader
RIPE NCC


RIPEのIPv6アドレス割当て/割振りのドキュメントについて訂正版を発行。
HDレシオが0.8の時代のものから順次Updateしてきているので変化を追いやすいかも。

RIPE-address-policy-wg@Apr 15, 2009

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:57:33 +0200
Subject: [address-policy-wg] Draft Proposal: Assignment of an IPv4 /24 for documentation purposes

Dear WG,

this is a rough draft policy proposal. I'd appreciate some feedback before
I decide whether to invoke the formal process.

Summary:
The RIPE NCC is asked to assign an IPv4 /24 for documentation purposes.

Background:

In example configurations, RFCs, training material and other documentation
it is necessary from time to time to include IP addresses, domain names
or even phone numbers as examples. These resources should meet all
syntactical requirements (e.g., be "real" IP addresses), but should not
interfere with assignments or registrations by innocent third parties.
See RFC 4085 (BCP 105) for what could happen in the worst case.

For the DNS, RFC 2606 (BCP 32) has set aside several top level and
second level domain names and the network 192.0.2/24 has been dedicated
for documentation and test purposes by the IANA in the past (see RFC 3330).

RFC 3849 ("IPv6 Address Prefix Reserved for Documentation") documents
APNIC's assignment of 2001:DB8::/32 for the sole use in example texts.

Motivation:

During recent discussion within the IETF, but also on other occasions
in the past, it appeared that a single /24 is often not enough to
support instructive examples. This may include more complex network
designs, or the use of addresses for DNS name servers, where good
practice (see RFC 2182, BCP 16) suggests topological diversity.

Sometimes, address space from RFC 1918 (BCP 5) is used in addition to
or as a replacement for 192.0.2/24, but this is also a source of
confusion due to the special nature of the "private address space".
It also conflicts with the goal to avoid any collision with addresses
used in real life, even if the burden would be spread across many
users of RFC 1918 address space.

Request:

The RIPE NCC is asked to assign and dedicate a /24 that is reasonable
visually distinct from 192.0.2/24 for documentation only purposes.
The network is not to be used and the prefix is never expected to be
announced in any BGP session (cf. 3849).

The new assignment is not intended to serve as a supplement to RFC 1918
address space. It is intentionally left open here whether similar
considerations would suggest an additional assignment in v6 space, as well.

The pros should be obvious to anyone who ever had to write documentation
or example configurations, but there are also some cons:

o another /24 is a waste of space
o just a /24 won't be enough
o this creates yet another bogon
o any invest in IPv4 is a waste of resources, anyway
o nobody knew 192.0.2/24 in the first place, so why add to the confusion?
o this doesn't need a policy proposal, but could be dealt with through
a specially "sponsored" PI assignment

A special action seems cleaner to me than some random PI assignment, but
this is why I'd like to ask the WG for feedback. Also, if anyone is
aware of other address space similar to 192.0.2/24, I'd appreciate a pointer.

Best regards,
Peter


ドキュメント用に192.0.2.0/24というネットワークが用意されているが、
複雑なネットワークのためにもうひとつ別の/24を割り当てようという提案。
なんでプライベートアドレスじゃだめなの？という反論あり。

RIPE-announce@Apr 14, 2009

From: Ingrid Wijte
To: policy-announce@ripe.net
Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Reply-To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:57:40 +0200
Subject: [policy-announce] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)

PDP Number: 2009-05
Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs

Dear Colleagues

A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for
discussion.

You can find the full proposal at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-05.html

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
before 12 May 2009.

Regards

Ingrid Wijte
Assistant Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC


欧州地域で新しいポリシーが出てきた。
LIRへのIPv6複数/32割当てに関して。PAでマルチホームするには必要かな。

RIPE-address-policy-wg@Apr 7, 2009

From: Filiz Yilmaz
To: policy-announce@ripe.net
Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Reply-To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:46:26 +0200
Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment)

PDP Number: 2009-04
IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment

Dear Colleagues,

A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for
discussion.

You can find the full proposal at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-04.html

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
before 5 May 2009.

Regards

Filiz Yilmaz
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC


IPv6導入のために、各LIRに/27のアドレスを配布し、NAT-PT/NAT464/IPv4&IPv6DualStack等に
使用してもらうためのポリシー提案が出ました。

が、LIRからは実現に関し厳しい意見が続いています。

RIPE-address-policy-wg@Apr 7, 2009

From: Filiz Yilmaz
To: policy-announce@ripe.net
Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Reply-To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:15:55 +0200
Subject: [address-policy-wg] Run Out Fairly (2009-03) New Policy Proposal

PDP Number: 2009-03
Run Out Fairly

Dear Colleagues,

A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for
discussion.

You can find the full proposal at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03.html

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
before 5 May 2009.

Regards

Filiz Yilmaz

Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC


欧州地域のRIPE NCCでもIPv4枯渇に関して新しいポリシー案が出てきました。
公平にIPv4使い切ろう、という名前のポリシーでそれまでに出ている枯渇関連とは
別個の議論として立ち上がりました。
何事も一緒に議論すると何も決まらないので目的を明確化したポリシーの制定方法は
いいと思います。はい。

RIPE-address-policy-wg@Mar 20, 2009

Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] Policy?
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:50:23 -0000
From:
To:

> imagine there is a company having huge allocation/assignment.=20
> Some happens (i.e. crisis), they lost a significant number of=20
> clients, so they have a lot of free IP space. Is there any=20
> policy ENFORCES this company to return unused address space?

No.

Policies do not enforce anything. Policies are like laws. They are
just words on paper. Enforcement has to come from somewhere=20
else.

If you read RIPE policies carefully, you will see that you do not have
to have a technical requirement today for every address that you
receive from RIPE. If RIPE is willing to give addresses to some=20
organizations which will not be used for many months, or years,
then it is difficult to force any organization to return addresses=20
when they experience a temporary downturn. Also, remember that most
RIPE members will reserve unused addresses for several months after
disconnecting a customer, before they assign those to other customers.

In the case of a dispute between RIPE and a member organization,
you cannot expect quick results. There will almost always be a
language barrier between RIPE and the member organization. The
multilingual hostmasters are probably not the right people to
be in the middle of a dispute. There are subtle difference in=20
translating a lot of the terminology that we use, for instance
assign and allocate have almost identical meanings in English,
so I don't expect translated terms to make any sense outside of
the RIPE context.

Let's face it, we are running out of IPv4 and the special efforts
that RIPE has made in the past year or so, has only caused this
runout date to become sooner for all but the smallest organizations.
IPv6 is the only way out of this mess. Attempting to enforce some=20
sort of efficient-use policy for IPv4 is wasted effort.

--Michael Dillon


顧客を失った企業から"ポリシー"として不要なIPアドレスの返却を"強制"できないか、
という質問に対する返答。端的に言うと、ポリシーで強制はできません、という話。

どのRIRでも既存の巨大Allocationを受けた企業から回収する方法に苦慮している。
どんなインセンティブを与えるか・・・
今まで検討された案は大部分が、先行者利益をかなり認める形でなかなか合意が得られない。
難しい。

RIPE-address-policy-wg@Feb 19, 2009

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:17:13 +0100
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy
for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries)
From: "R.S. van Mook"
To: Randy Bush , Filiz Yilmaz
CC:


Hi Randy -

I think the simple two-sentence summary would be something like this:

The current policy between IANA and the RIRs for allocating IPv4 will become
unusable once IANA runs out. We need a new policy that keeps the structure
between IANA and RIRs in place and gives IANA something useful to do.

That said, I sympathize with the proposal but I'm not sure if this is what
we're looking for.

Best,

Remco

On 2/19/09 10:39 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote:

> feliz,
>
> can someone tell us what the actual intent of this policy is? like
> in a simple sentence or two?
>
> randy


つぶらな瞳で「このポリシーの要点はなに？」とすっとぼけることで
議論を収束させ、ひとつの方向に目を向けさせる高等手段。
ランディさん、さすがです。
RIPEのaddress-policy-wgも活発なメーリングリストで世界中の方がコメントを寄せています。それぞれのバックグラウンドに思いを馳せると言いたい事も解るし、面白さが出てきます。