Erik Bais, May 5 th 2011 PP - 2011-02 Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 Presenter : Erik Bais –

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Erik Bais, May 15 th 2013 PP Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members Presenter : Erik Bais –
Advertisements

Registration Services Feedback Andrea Cima RIPE NCC RIPE 66 - Dublin.
A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E APNIC Open Address Policy Meeting Address Policy SIG October 26th, Brisbane.
Erik Bais, May 14 th 2014 PP Allow IPv4 PI transfer Presenter : Erik Bais –
Update about the “SHOULDs Analysing Project” in RIPE Policy Documents “Should” we use the RFC 2119 Defined Language in RIPE Policy Documents? Jan Žorž,
December 2013 Internet Number Resource Report. December 2013 Internet Number Resource Report INTERNET NUMBER RESOURCE STATUS REPORT As of 31 December.
March 2014 Internet Number Resource Report. March 2014 Internet Number Resource Report INTERNET NUMBER RESOURCE STATUS REPORT As of 31 March 2014 Prepared.
1 Overview of policy proposals Policy SIG Wednesday 26 August 2009 Beijing, China.
1 Change in the Minimum Allocation Criteria Policy Proposal Proposed by Rajesh Chharia, President – ISPAI Presented by Kusumba S Vice President - ISPAI.
ARIN Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification.
Current Policy Topics Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC RIPE Oct - 4 Nov 2011, Vienna.
IPv6 Addressing – Status and Policy Report Paul Wilson Director General, APNIC.
1 Axel Pawlik APNIC 22, 8 September 2006, Kaohsiung RIPE NCC Update APNIC 22.
1 Extension of minimum initial IPv6 allocation size Jan Žorž (Go6 Institute Slo) Ole Trøan (Cisco) proposal.
RIPE Network Coordination Centre ISOC 2007/IPv6 Forum, Tel Aviv, Feb Arno Meulenkamp IP Resource Statistics & IPv6 Policy Update.
APNIC Update The state of IP address distribution and its impact to business operations 1 Elly Tawhai Senior Internet Resource Analyst/Liaison Officer,
RIS Resource Allocations A special report on an endangered species …
Update on RIPE NCC Inter- RIR Transfer proposal Adam Gosling APNIC 38 Policy SIG Meeting 18 September 2014.
APNIC 33 AMM Policy SIG Report Andy Linton, Policy SIG Chair Thursday 2 March 2012.
Implementation Update Adam Gosling APNIC Policy SIG Meeting Thursday, 18 September 2014.
IPv6 Interim Policy Draft RIPE 42 Amsterdam, The Netherlands 1 May 2002.
Policy Implementation and Experience Report Leslie Nobile.
Overview of policy proposals Policy SIG 27 February 2008 APNIC 25, Taipei.
IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey 2009 Based on responses from the APNIC community APNIC29, 4 March 2010 By Miwa Fujii, Senior IPv6 Program Specialist,
Policy Experience Report Richard Jimmerson. Review existing policies – Ambiguous text/Inconsistencies/Gaps/Effectiveness Identify areas where new or modified.
A S I A P A C I F I C N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N C E N T R E Internet Registry allocation and assignment Policies.
APNIC Policy Update 1 st TWNIC IP Open Policy Meeting 3 December, 2003 Taipei, Taiwan.
POLICY EXPERIENCE REPORT Leslie Nobile. Review existing policies – Ambiguous text/Inconsistencies/Gaps/Effectiveness Identify areas where new or modified.
Skeeve Stevens APNIC 29, Kuala Lumpur Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations Prop-083v002.
APNIC Policy Update 1 st TWNIC Open Policy Meeting 3 December, 2003 Taipei, Taiwan.
Address Policy SIG, APNIC Policy meeting, February 27th, 2003 (1) IPv6 Policy in action Feedback from other RIR communities David Kessens Chairperson RIPE.
1 APNIC allocation and policy update JPNIC OPM July 17, Tokyo, Japan Guangliang Pan.
A proposal to lower the IPv4 minimum allocation size and initial criteria in the AP region prop-014-v001 Policy SIG APNIC17/APRICOT 2004 Feb
1 pa-mhome-community IPv6 multihoming using provider independent (PI) space not possible (until now?) Other approaches not ready yet (shim6) So use more.
Mirjam Kühne 1 EC, Oct Policy Development in RIPE & the RIPE NCC Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC.
Erik Bais, May 13 th 2015 PP – unassigned yet General Transfer Policy Presenter : Erik Bais –
Feedback from RIPE NCC Registration Services Alex Le Heux, RIPE NCC RIPE64 Ljubljana.
Routing integrity in a world of Bandwidth on Demand Dave Wilson DW238-RIPE
APNIC Policy SIG report: Open Policy Meeting Masato Yamanishi, Chair APNIC 40 Jakarta, Indonesia.
Rough Edges of Current Policies Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC Rome.
Erik Bais, Nov 5 th 2014 PP Allow IPv6 Transfers Presenter : Erik Bais –
IP Addressing and ICT Development in the Pacific Islands Anne Lord and Save Vocea, APNIC ICT Workshop, Fiji, November, 2002.
Skeeve Stevens APNIC 31, Hong Kong Alternative criteria for subsequent IPv6 allocations Prop-083v003.
Policies for ASN Management in the Asia Pacific Region – Revised Draft Address Policy SIG APNIC14, Kitakyushu, Japan 4 Sept 2002.
Rob Blokzijl, RIPE 64, April 2012 IPv4 Maintenance Policy.
Policy Experience Report Leslie Nobile. Review existing policies – Ambiguous text/Inconsistencies/Gaps/Effectiveness Identify areas where new or modified.
Current Policy Topics Emilio Madaio RIPE NCC RIPE November 2010, Rome.
Registration Services Feedback Andrea Cima RIPE NCC RIPE 67 - Athens.
Prop-073 Automatic allocation/assignment of IPv6 Terry Manderson Andy Linton.
1 IANA global IPv6 allocation policy [prop-005-v002] Policy SIG 1 Sept 2004 APNIC18, Nadi, Fiji.
Abuse-c update Denis Walker Business Analyst RIPE NCC Database Team.
Prop-077: Proposal to supplement transfer policy of historical IPv4 addresses Wendy Zhao Wei, Jane Zhang & Terence Zhang Yinghao.
Update from the RIPE NCC Axel Pawlik Managing Director.
Copyright (c) 2002 Japan Network Information Center Proposal for IPv6 Policy for Essential Infrastructure in the AP region Izumi Okutani IP Address Section.
1 APNIC Open Address Policy Meeting Special Interest Group Session March 2nd, Korea, Seoul.
ARIN Scott Leibrand / David Huberman
A view from ARIN, LACNIC & RIPE Communities Laura Cobley
PP – Resource Authentication Key ( RAK ) code for third party authentication Presenter : Erik Bais –
Publication of Legal Address of Internet Number Resource Holders
Jane Zhang & Wendy Zhao Wei
PP – RIPE Resource Transfer Policies
The Current Issues in IPv6 Policy
IPv6 distribution and policy update
IPv6 Address Space Management A follow up to RIPE-261
Feedback From NCC Registration Services
PP – RIPE Resource Transfer Policies
PP Allow AS Number Transfers
Removing aggregation criteria for IPv6 initial allocations
James Blessing, Sandra Brown,
When Can We Start Dropping IPv4 on the DNS Root Servers?
Presentation transcript:

Erik Bais, May 5 th 2011 PP Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 Presenter : Erik Bais –

Erik Bais, May 5 th 2011 Policy proposal info Authors – Erik Bais & Jordi Palet Current status : Open for Discussion Phase end : 13 May 2011 Impact on : RIPE

Erik Bais, May 5 th – 02 Policy proposal In short : Removal of the multi-home requirement for IPv6 PI in policy RIPE – 512 Current policy text : 8. IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments To qualify for IPv6 PI address space, an organisation must: a) demonstrate that it will be multihomed b) meet the requirements of the policies described in the RIPE NCC document entitled “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resources Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”.Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resources Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region 3

Erik Bais, May 5 th 2011 Proposed new policy text Remove point 8: a from the policy. Let’s keep things simple.. 4

Erik Bais, May 5 th 2011 Why this proposal change ? Currently there is a discrimination between PA IPv6 and PI IPv6. As a LIR, you can get a PA IPv6 prefix, without any requirements. As an end-customer, you can only request a IPv6 PI prefix if you plan for multi-homing. 5

Erik Bais, May 5 th 2011 Current policy is LIR biased If you pay your way into the community (become a LIR), you are not required to multi- home. – There are plenty of LIR’s that don’t multi-home. If an end-customer wants an IPv6 PI, they could get a cheap (PI) prefix, but have to start multi-homing. 6

Erik Bais, May 5 th 2011 Where did it come from ? Limiting IPv6 to PA or PI with multihoming, probably because of fear for v6 DFZ explosion. However … if you pay to become a LIR, we (the community) don’t care about the DFZ. So it’s not a technical issue, it is a financial question… 7

Erik Bais, May 5 th 2011 Why not become a LIR? There are plenty of reasons why a company doesn’t want to sign-up as a LIR. – Strategic reasons – They don’t require to allocate addresses to other entities. – They don’t see themselves as an ISP. But they still require their own IP space, even if they don’t require / need multihoming. 8

Erik Bais, May 5 th 2011 Why is multi-homing for EC’s not always good? Multi-homing (BGP) is not for the faint-hearted. A multi-homing is not cheap. You require : – Expensive equipment – Multiple transits (with a traffic commitment) – Engineers that understand IP/IPv6 & BGP setups. BGP is setup based on trust and mistakes are quite common … 9

Erik Bais, May 5 th 2011 Why is this not helpful ? The current PI IPv6 multihoming requirement is not improving the # of IPv6 deployments. 10

Erik Bais, May 5 th 2011 What do you think ? In order to get your feedback on the topic : Send your comments to before 13 May This could be as simple as : – I support the policy. 11

Questions?