December 2003 - address-policy-wg

Re: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA allocation size
by Jeff Williams 15 Jan '04

15 Jan '04

Hans and all, You are mistaken Hans. It would benefit you and everyone here if you would track Apnic a little closer... Hans Petter Holen wrote: > Dear WG, > As I have seen no proposals to prolong this process, we have consensus on > this matter. > > Seasons Greetings, > Hans Petter Holen > Address Policy WG Chair > > |Dear WG, > |I would like to call for closure on this matter. As this has > |been presented and discussed at the last RIPE meeting and > |proposed to the list as a formal proposal I would like to > |declare consensus on this issue. > | > |There have been discussion on the mainlinglist with some > |critical comments that it is my understanding has been > |clearified. (This proposal does not affect the payment scedule > |or membership structure and it does not affecting the PI policy). > | > |With this I would normaly declare concensus but as no deadline > |was set for the discussion I propose a 1 week last call for > |objections to the process on this matter. If I receive > |objections I propose to set a I month comment period before > |calling for closure on this matter. > | > |Best Regards, > |Hans Petter Holen > |Address Policy WG Chair > | > ||-----Original Message----- > ||From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > ||[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering > ||Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:31 PM > ||To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > ||Subject: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA > ||allocation size > || > ||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 > || > | Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

5 11

Change of Minumum IPv4 Allocation Size
by Filiz Yilmaz 23 Dec '03

23 Dec '03

Dear Colleagues, The final date for comments on the "Last Call" on the proposal to change the minimum IPv4 allocation size to /21 ended on 22 December 2003. There were no comments made therefore we will implement this policy change on 1 January 2004. Please note that there will be two changes. Firstly, the minimum IPv4 allocation size is /21. Secondly, it is no longer required to demonstrate efficient utilisation of a /22. Our supporting documentation and software will be updated as soon as possible. Please note that /21 allocations will only come from the 83.0.0.0/8 and 84.0.0.0/8 blocks. A full listing of the "Smallest RIPE NCC Allocation / Assignment Sizes" can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Snr. Hostmaster RIPE NCC

1 0

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] Fwd: selling ip:s? (kf)
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 05 Dec '03

05 Dec '03

>IP addresses are clearly quite valuable, especially PI ones, not to mention >the "allocated unspecified" ones, for obvious reasons. However, the community >should definately do everything in it's power to make sure IP addresses are >not, under any circumstances, sold. We should also note that any value which may be attached to IPv4 addresses today will likely be significantly diluted as IPv6 is more widely deployed. Anyone who thinks that they will gain some advantage by paying for IPv4 addresses will be greatly disappointed when that advantage evaporates because of IPv6. Scarcity often increases the value of something so we should be quite clear that IPv6 addresses will be so abundant that any intrinsic scarcity value in IP addresses will disappear. I think that this point is important enough to be incorporated in a document regarding IPv4 addresses as a warning. There are already commercial IPv6 services available in Europe as well as several production networks used internally by research and development consortia. There is no doubt that IPv6 has matured and that the growth in the deployment of IPv6 will continue. All of this tends to reduce the pressure on the IPv4 address space and therefore reduces any intrinsic value of an IPv4 address. --Michael Dillon

2 1

RE: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: selling ip:s? (kf)
by Mike Norris 05 Dec '03

05 Dec '03

> why are we not allowed to sell ip address? i dont understand...please explain...thank you Quote from ripe-152: "By themselves, these resources have no intrinsic value; their worth is only realised in conjunction with the provision of Internet access. Thus, while registries may charge for their administrative and technical services, they may not charge for name space or address space as such; no unit cost or price tag can be attached to a domain name or to an IP address, public or private. " See http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-152.html <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-152.html> for the full document. Regards. Mike Norris

5 4

Fwd: selling ip:s? (kf)
by MEUZAK6＠aol.com 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

why are we not allowed to sell ip address? i dont understand...please explain...thank you

1 0