October 2003 - address-policy-wg

FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA allocation size
by Gert Doering 23 Dec '03

23 Dec '03

Hi, this was discussed on the list before the last RIPE meeting, and we had it on the address policy working group meeting (presented by me). I think we mostly have consensus on this issue, but I want to present it as a formal proposal, before it's incorporated into the policy. PROPOSAL: * the minimum initial allocation size (for new LIRs) is reduced from a /20, as of today, to a /21. (If a new LIR can demonstrate need for a bigger initial allocation, they can get a larger address block. This will not be changed). * the requirement to show an immediate need for 25% of the allocated address space is removed for the "minimum initial allocation" The motivation for that is that under the current policy, startup LIRs that do not already hold address space cannot get an initial PA allocation (which would be a /20 as of today, or bigger), because in many cases, they cannot demonstrate immediate need, or prior utilization of sufficient address space. To work around this, many startup LIRs use PI address space as a start, and when they have filled enough of this, apply for their own PA again. The problem with this is that in the end, it's very likely that more than one route will end up in the global BGP table (where one PA route would be sufficient), and also it encourages lying to the RIRs (PI space must not be distributed to third parties, i.e., LIR customers). The drawback of the changes are that it's potentially wasting address space for "very small LIRs" (that would be happy with a /23 PI space and will now get a "huge" /21). The wastage would only happen for very small LIRs that will never grow to fill the initial /21. A rough calculation shows that "1000 new LIR /21 allocations" would need a /11, which is not an unbearable strain on the conservation side, judging from the total number of LIRs in RIPE land today. A second drawback of this is that people may need to adapt their BGP filters to permit /21s from the network block(s) where these allocations are made from. So the RIPE NCC needs to document this accordingly, and ideally, well in advance. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57785 (56883) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

4 6

IANA Policies for Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to RIRs
by Axel Pawlik 15 Dec '03

15 Dec '03

Dear Colleagues, The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have been working together with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) on a policy for the allocation of IPv4 address space to the RIRs. The proposed policy was presented to the RIPE Address Policy Working Group at RIPE 46 in September. The presentation can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-ap-iana-rir/ Following discussion in all four RIR regions, this policy proposal and discussion results will be forwarded to the ICANN ASO Address Council for review and submission to the ICANN Board. It is considered a global policy proposal. Please review the document "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policies for Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries". The document can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/iana-rir-allocation-policies.html Comments on this proposal should be sent to this list. The review period is six weeks and will end on 16 November. A webcast recording of the entire RIPE Address Policy Working Group session can be found at: mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe46/ap-1a.wmv mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe46/ap-2a.wmv Kind regards, Axel

2 1

RE: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA all ocation size
by Titley, Nigel 17 Nov '03

17 Nov '03

Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > this was discussed on the list before the last RIPE meeting, and we > had it on the address policy working group meeting (presented by me). > > I think we mostly have consensus on this issue, but I want to present > it as a formal proposal, before it's incorporated into the policy. I am strongly in favour of this, it helps to solve the bootstrapping problem that many small LIRs suffer from, and which many have to lie about to get around. > > PROPOSAL: > > * the minimum initial allocation size (for new LIRs) is reduced from > a /20, as of today, to a /21. > (If a new LIR can demonstrate need for a bigger initial > allocation, they can get a larger address block. This will not > be changed). > > * the requirement to show an immediate need for 25% of the allocated > address space is removed for the "minimum initial allocation" > > > The motivation for that is that under the current policy, startup LIRs > that do not already hold address space cannot get an initial > PA allocation > (which would be a /20 as of today, or bigger), because in > many cases, they > cannot demonstrate immediate need, or prior utilization of sufficient > address space. > > To work around this, many startup LIRs use PI address space > as a start, > and when they have filled enough of this, apply for their own > PA again. > The problem with this is that in the end, it's very likely that more > than one route will end up in the global BGP table (where one PA route > would be sufficient), and also it encourages lying to the > RIRs (PI space > must not be distributed to third parties, i.e., LIR customers). > > > The drawback of the changes are that it's potentially wasting address > space for "very small LIRs" (that would be happy with a /23 PI space > and will now get a "huge" /21). The wastage would only happen for > very small LIRs that will never grow to fill the initial /21. > A rough calculation shows that "1000 new LIR /21 allocations" would > need a /11, which is not an unbearable strain on the conservation > side, judging from the total number of LIRs in RIPE land today. > > A second drawback of this is that people may need to adapt their BGP > filters to permit /21s from the network block(s) where these > allocations are made from. So the RIPE NCC needs to document this > accordingly, and ideally, well in advance. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster ********************************************************************** This e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and contains information which is or may be confidential, non-public or legally privileged. Any dissemination or distribution of this message other than to its intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us by email to postmaster(a)flagtelecom.com immediately and delete the original message and all copies from all locations in your computer systems. This e-mail has been swept by Mailsweeper TM for viruses. However, FLAG Telecom cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses. **********************************************************************

2 1

Is the time for conservation over?
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 04 Nov '03

04 Nov '03

One area of address policy that is fairly consistent world-wide is the view that IPv4 address space is scarce and that the policy must be conservative, i.e. the policy must make conservation of IPv4 addresses a high priority. I don't think that's true anymore. On the one hand, we have IPv6 deployed commercially in 3 of the 4 policy regions (Europe, AsiaPac, America) which indicates a continuing trend toward a future time where IPv6 service will be almost as easy to find as IPv4 service. On the other hand, the worst possible outcomes discussed when CIDR was first deployed are not going to happen. For instance there was a fear that the People's Republic of China might want 1/4 of the IPv4 space because they have 1/4 of the planet's population. This has not happened and is now quite unlikely to happen. Therefore, I believe that all the RIRs should jointly do some research to establish a prudent date at which IPv6 will be considered to have reached critical mass so that there will be a significant migration of users from IPv4 to IPv6. Once we set our sights on this date we should set aside a certain amount of buffer in the IPv4 space, and then design our policy to consume the rest of the IPv4 space, not to preserve it. At the same time, this policy shift should be presented as part of a global IPv6 migration strategy because that is what it is. In addition, I don't see any good reason to wait until LIRs come and ask for IPv6 space. It's not scarce and the vast majority of IPv4 LIRs will be deploying IPv6 sometime. So why don't we just give every single one of them an IPv6 /32 today. Instead of creating barriers to the adoption of dual v4/v6 networks as we are today, we should be facilitating the operation of dual v4/v6 networks. We need to create an environment in which the end user can choose whether to use v4 or v6 rather than constraining the end users with our v4-centric regulatory bureaucracy. --Michael Dillon

9 14

Re: [address-policy-wg] re: Is the time for conservation over?
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 04 Nov '03

04 Nov '03

>>In addition, I don't see any good reason to wait until LIRs come and ask >>for IPv6 space. It's not scarce and the vast majority of IPv4 LIRs will >>be deploying IPv6 sometime. So why don't we just give every single >>one of them an IPv6 /32 today. Instead of creating barriers to the >>adoption >This was the opinion in the first days op IPv4, please don't make the same mistakes again with IPv6.. We can't look into the future, but we can look at the past!! I don't want to make the same mistakes as IPv4. That is why I want to give an IPv6 /32 to every IPv4 LIR. With IPv4 we made a mistake by trying to be too careful with class C address blocks and again with small CIDR blocks. Instead of giving out large blocks of class C space, we created the swamp. When CIDR came along we continued to give out blocks for one year or less of growth and we bloated the global routing table. With IPv6 we do not have to worry about waste. Every LIR gets a /32 from a reserved /29. When addresses are issued to customers, everybody gets a /48 except in special circumstances where a /64 or a /128 would be assigned. I don't think there will be very many special situation that justify a /64 assignment today. This means that we have a very simple straightforward system that allows LIRs to grow 8 times before we even begin to create anything that is similar to past history. The key to avoiding the mistakes of history is to forget about conserving address space. It is not a scarce resource; we have lots of it. --Michael Dillon

2 1

RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: Is the time for conservation over?
by Michel Py 29 Oct '03

29 Oct '03

> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > For those who do not (yet) know him, be assured you can safely > ignore all messages coming from Jeff Williams, known troll in > the Internet governance issues. Indeed. I have heard some rumors that Jeff Williams and Jim Fleming are the same person. Or maybe there is a brotherhood of trolls. > (And, as we know, IPv8 does not exist.) I actually read it a while ago. I will not go as far as recommending reading it, but I found it both hilarious and a somehow extensive list of exactly what not to do :-) Michel.

1 0

IPv4 Address Space
by Paul Rendek 29 Oct '03

29 Oct '03

[Apologies for duplicate mailings] Dear Colleagues, There have been press articles posted over the past year that make statements about the remaining pool of IPv4 address space. A recent article states there is a shortage and that Internet Protocol Numbers will run out some time in the year 2005. The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) do not themselves make predictions about when the remaining IPv4 address space will be depleted. They do, however, report on the rates of RIR allocation of IPv4 address space and on the state of the remaining pool of IPv4 address space. The information provided in these RIR reports makes it apparent that many of the recent claims regarding IPv4 address space shortage are speculative and are not based on authoritative, publicly available statistics. IPv4 Address Space: Current Statistics ============================ The global pool of IPv4 addresses is administered by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which allocates address blocks to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) as they are required. The IPv4 allocation unit in this case is the "/8 block", equivalent to approximately 16 million addresses. It should be noted that as of 30 June 2003 the global pool of IPv4 address space contained 91 of these blocks for this purpose. The RIRs report on statistics regarding IPv4 allocation on their respective web sites and present a "Joint Statistics" report at each of the RIR meetings and at other Internet industry meetings several times yearly. This information is publicly available and provides the most up-to-date statistics on rates of IPv4 allocation. The most recent presentation on this subject can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/rs/statistics/resource-status-200310.pdf This report states that the RIRs have collectively allocated 19.59 /8 equivalents in the four and a half years between January 1999 and June 2003. It also identifies that there are 91 /8 equivalents held by the IANA in reserve for future allocation by the RIRs. Based on today's total global allocation rate of approximately 4.25 blocks per year in 2002, or 5.5 blocks in 2001, and the remaining pool of 91 blocks held by IANA, it is unrealistic to assume that there is an imminent shortage in the IPv4 address space. Even allowing for a dramatic increase in address consumption rates, it is highly probable that IPv4 address space will last well beyond the two years predicted by some. IPv4 Address Space: Allocated Globally According to Regional Needs ================================================== The RIRs are not-for-profit membership organisations dedicated to providing neutral and fair Internet resource distribution to their members, while ensuring the conservation and aggregation of IPv4 address space. The IANA policies for allocation of IPv4 address blocks to the RIRs are applied fairly and are based purely on the documented need for address space. When IPv4 address space finally "runs out" this will occur at the global level, leaving each region with a relatively small pool of addresses remaining to be allocated. It has been suggested that Asia will experience an IPv4 address shortage before other regions. This is simply not true. This is because addresses are distributed in a co-ordinated fashion from a single global pool, and there is no system whereby that pool is exclusively divided among, or pre-allocated to, different countries or regions. Through the current system of address administration, IP addresses are allocated according to immediate need wherever that need is demonstrated and it is simply not possible for isolated "shortages" to exist. As has been done in the past, the RIRs will continue to report regularly on the registration and allocation rates of Internet Protocol Numbers, and will work closely with the IANA to ensure the efficient management of the remaining IPv4 address space. RIR Statistics: ========== APNIC http://www.apnic.net/info/reports/index.html ARIN http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html LACNIC http://www.lacnic.net/en/est.html RIPE NCC http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/mem-services/registration/statistics/ Raw Data/Historical RIR Allocations: ========================== http://www.aso.icann.org/stats/index.html http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space The Internet Number Resource Status Report, prepared jointly by the four RIRs, provides up-to-date statistics on rates of IPv4 allocation. This presentation is available at: http://www.ripe.net/rs/statistics/resource-status-200310.pdf Cheers, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services and Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE NCC Dubai Meeting, Dec. 2003 - Updated Agenda
by Membership Liason Officer 29 Oct '03

29 Oct '03

[Apologies for duplicate mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Middle East, will be held 7 - 9 December 2003 at the Metropolitan Palace Hotel, Dubai, U.A.E. The meeting will focus on Internet Resource management issues. Attendance to the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting is open and free of charge. However, attendees are responsible for covering their own travel and accommodation costs. UPDATED AGENDA The agenda has been updated with more information about speakers and presentations. The preliminary list of speakers includes: - Rob Blokzijl (RIPE Chair) - Tim Mertens (CENTR) - Keith Mitchell (XchangePoint) - Axel Pawlik (RIPE NCC) - Phillip Smith (Cisco Systems) The Director General of APNIC, Paul Wilson, will also give a presentation on IPv4 address lifetime expectancy. For the full agenda, please see: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/regional-meetings/dubai-2003/plan.html The RIPE NCC has reserved several presentation opportunities for those with local knowledge of Internet management and operational issues affecting the Middle East. If your organisation wishes to provide a presentation or suggest a relevant topic, please send your proposal by e-mail to: <contact(a)ripe.net>. ATTENDEE LIST The attendee list is regularly updated with new registrations and is now available online at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/regional-meetings/dubai-2003/attendees.html HOTEL RESERVATIONS: The RIPE NCC has arranged for a block of rooms to be held for meeting attendees at the Metropolitan Palace Hotel and the Metropolitan Hotel Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai. There are a limited number of rooms available, so we strongly suggest you book early to avoid disappointment. For more information about these hotels, and to reserve a room, please see: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/regional-meetings/dubai-2003/hotel-information.… REGISTRATION To register for the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Middle East, please see: http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/dubai-reg Any further questions about the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Middle East, can be sent directly to: <contact(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Sabrina Wilmot Membership Liaison Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Is the time for conservation over?
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

>It sounds a little bit contradictory to give away IPv4 addresses when >you want people to migrate to IPv6, doesn't it? One of the supposed >advantage of IPv6 is the as-much-as-you-can-eat approach to addresses >So I think your proposal is seriously flawed and contradicts your >desired goal. You forgot this next bit. Think it through... >> In addition, I don't see any good reason to wait until LIRs come and ask >> for IPv6 space. It's not scarce and the vast majority of IPv4 LIRs will >> be deploying IPv6 sometime. So why don't we just give every single >> one of them an IPv6 /32 today. Instead of creating barriers to the >> adoption We give out free IPv6 addresses to everyone using IPv4. And we make it easier for new organizations to receive blocks of globally unique registered IPv4 addresses, i.e. not hijacked addresses and not RFC 1918 addresses. In any case, this is just lowering a barrier. It doesn't solve every IPv6 issue but it does remove an unecessary barrier. --Michael Dillon

3 2

RIPE-288, Publishing date correction
by RIPE NCC WebMaster 28 Oct '03

28 Oct '03

Dear colleagues, The correct publishing date for the new "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" (ripe-288) is 28 October 2003, not 14 June 2002 as previously stated. Apologies for the inconvenience, Jeroen Bet RIPE NCC WEBMASTER ==================

1 0