October 2008 - address-policy-wg

2008-05 New Policy Proposal (Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM)
by Filiz Yilmaz 09 Apr '09

09 Apr '09

PDP Number: 2008-05 Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM 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/2008-05.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 2 October 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

3 2

Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
by Ondřej Surý 17 Nov '08

17 Nov '08

Hello everybody, I would like to post unformal proposal before writing official policy modification proposal (and/or having discussion tomorrow on Open Hour). We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modified to allow /24 *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* to gTLD/ccTLD. First reason behind this is that one PI is not really enough and it's blocking us to deploy more DNS servers and make our TLD service more reliable. Second reason is that if we deploy more Anycasted DNS servers we could keep (or drop down) number of NS records for TLD, so we could manage to keep DNS reply size low even with DNSSEC. And last, but not least, it would be good to keep this synchronized with other regions (see [1],[2]). Note: we may also extend the list of requestors to: Root DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, IANA, RIRs. Which I think is reasonable list. 1. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2 2. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#3-4-1 If there is at least some consensus, I am willing to write official policy change proposal. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------

6 9

2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Oct '08

28 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2008-06 Use of final /8 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/2008-06.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 12 November 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

10 10

2008-07 New Policy Proposal (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Oct '08

28 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2008-07 Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources 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/2008-07.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 12 November 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

3 2

2008-09 New Policy Proposal (ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs)
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Oct '08

28 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2008-09 ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs 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/2008-09.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 17 November 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

21 28

New version of 2006-1 IPv6 PI Policy Proposal
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 27 Oct '08

27 Oct '08

Hi all, According to the discussion in the list and the inputs received in the afternoon presentation, here is the draft text which is being also officially submitted to the WG chairs. As usual, inputs are welcome ! Regards, Jordi RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-01 - v4.0 Summary of Proposal: This policy is intended to provide a solution for organisations that need IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) assignments. Typically, such organisations will require the PI assignment to become Multihomed as happens for IPv4, but there may be other reason behind requests. This policy proposal is only trying to cover this type of PI assignments (for example data centers which are not an ISP, or content providers). Draft Policy Text: Qualification for an IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment: To qualify for a direct assignment, the End User must have a contract with a sponsoring LIR or a direct contract with the RIPE NCC, as detailed in the policy proposal 2007-01. The PI assignment can¹t be further assigned to other organisations. PI IPv6 Assignment Size to End User Organisations: The minimum size of the assignment is /48. However, a larger assignment (shorter prefix) can be provided if duly documented and justified. Subsequent Assignment Size to End User Organisations: Whenever possible, further assignments will be made from adjacent address blocks, but only if duly documented and justified. Assignment 'Super Block': Assignments will be allocated from a separate 'super block' to facilitate filtering practices. Rationale: a. Arguments Supporting the Proposal In IPv4, there are organisations that qualify for a PI allocation, or that could opt to become an LIR. This may be because they need either to be Multihomed or have other administrative or technical reasons for needing a portable addressing block. This is currently not the case for IPv6, and is perceived as a clear barrier for deployment of IPv6 in some organisations. This policy proposal addresses that barrier by means of providing a direct assignment from the RIPE NCC. Any organisation receiving such an assignment would not be allowed to make further assignments to other external organisations, but instead only to assign subnets internally within their own facilities. The RIPE NCC can¹t force routing decision on people, but the RIPE NCC can help people making educated choices about their routing filters by assigning IPv6 PI /48s from a well-documented super block¹. Experience from other regions shows that routing of /48s that are clearly marked as direct assignments¹ works well. By setting up this policy, we would avoid creating an unfair situation among different regions, and meet the needs of any organisation that required PI address space. All organisations that opt for this PI, will be in an equal position once the community agrees a long-term technical solution and will have to either move to this new solution or become an LIR, if they qualify. Newcomers will also be in the same position. Some organisations will not opt for PI under this policy because they do not need it. This would avoid placing them in an unfair situation. b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal The possible effect of this proposal is a growth of global routing tables to levels that, together with the existing and forecast IPv4 routing entries, could create significant issues for operators unless vendors can provide products that address such issues. Even if such technical solutions were found, the proposal could still have a major impact on the cost and/or depreciation period for infrastructure investments. It is expected that organisations requesting an IPv6 PI prefix under this policy, which may need in the future a standard PA block, will apply for that according to existing policies and will need to renumber. ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

2 1

Some observations on the differences in the various transfer policy proposals
by Geoff Huston 24 Oct '08

24 Oct '08

Hi, At the ARIN meeting last week the question arose as to why the various policy proposals related to address transfers in the different RIRs were so different. I made some comments in response to this question from my perspective and then I had some followup questions mailed to me, so I thought maybe there is some value in writing my perspective up. If you are interested its at: http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2008-11/transfers.html thanks, Geoff Huston DIsclaimer: I'm speaking for myself, again!

2 2

Suggestion: charging for IPv4 space
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond 23 Oct '08

23 Oct '08

All: Although I am not representing any registry and although this is my first post here, I have been reading through the archives of address-policy-wg and found a lot of the "usual suspects". This is not criticism, on the contrary, I think it's great that people are taking part in the discussions in each part of the world, but I do apologise to those who have already read my proposal below. I am sending here, in the hope that there might be some who haven't read it yet & who might wish to comment. Indeed, I am consulting each RIR discussion list separately, because I feel there might be local & cultural issues specific to each region. I might be wrong. Please don't shoot me. For one, I see the discussion about Millions of IP addresses lying idle having made it here as well & similar feedback wrt to it being flawed. However, I have also seen a lot about IPv4 address re-allocation but very little about IPv6 migration. So... Through discussions I've had with dozens of people (some of whom are reading this message), I have noticed the following: - currently, neither IPv4 nor IPv6 address delegation are directly linked to any kind of significant recurent *annual* fee; - some ISPs are considering introducing IPv6 connectivity to customers *for a premium* rather than IPv4 (yes, sadly, it's true); - we've had 10+ years of slogan "we are running out of IPv4 addresses" and this has not "hit the spot" to get a transitional process going; - sadly, there is a lack of IPv6 "killer ap" to promote the use of IPv6 over IPv4; - availability of several IPv6 "islands" exist on the Internet, with very poor "trans-island" connectivity (although I am told that this is s-l-o-w-l-y improving - and that's good news); - a lot of stigmas are associated with IPv6 (our customers do not request it; there is no demand; etc.) Clearly, we could all go on talking for another 10 years about IPv6. But we don't have 10 years. So what's the hurdle? Let's be fair, folks, it all boils down to a question of *money*. v4 to v6 transition is seen as an expensive exercise. Darn, with hardware, software & training, transition is expensive! Had it been cheap, we wouldn't be in the *utter mess* that we are in today because it would have been a natural thing to do. So we are going to run out of "greenfield IPv4" addresses by, say, 25 Dec 2010. Or earlier. Or later. Whatever. What we know is that we'll run out. <Boom>. IPv4 addresses will become a limited commodity. Speculators are going to step in, and they are likely to do it at a shockingly fast speed. (eg. Cantel & Siegel's Green Card Lottery announced mass spamming; the sex.com case announced the worth of domain names). My suggestion (and others have already touched on the idea) is therefore to engage a study of the following "positive discrimination" proposal: 1. Introducing a *recurrent annual* cost-element to IPv4 addresses, the reason behind it being: making v6 cheaper to run than v4. This could be a small cost to start with, increasing significantly but steadily along a scale for the next few years. This should act more as a *deterrent* for the use of IPv4 in the future than as a "tax" to be paid now. Heck, it might even start cleaning up IPv4 space and giving us more time to transit to v6 through the release of more IPv4 space! Those effects are hard to predict. 2. Building a v4 to v6 neutral & non-for-profit transition fund from the IPv4 revenue. This fund could finance/subsidise the following: a. the initial bridging of the IPv6 islands until those would be able to fly commercially b. IPv6 tech training c. any other project that would trigger/help v4 to v6 transition If we do not make IPv6 more interesting financially, we risk failure to transit smoothly. This will cause a *much greater problem* than Domain speculation since IP addressing constitutes the very fabric of the Internet: 1. Panic in operators who might then try and grab as much v4 space as possible, thus compounding the problem; 2. Panic transition from v4 to v6 which will completely forego the transition testing period which Peter Kirstein (UCL London) has mentioned many times, thus introducing instability in the Internet; 3. A lack of fully qualified technicians & engineers to run IPv6 networks; 4. A "free" market for IPv4 addresses where prices quickly spiral out of control. I am trying to look for a solution which will ease the shock by instead smoothly raising prices. A totally unregulated increase is to be feared. The rate of increase might have a greater impact than the price itself - see oil prices if you're not convinced: we can "survive" with oil at $140 a barrel, but we are hurt by the price going quickly from $70 a barrel to $140. It messes the world's economy up because it changes the balance at once in all of our business models. I don't believe in self-regulation by the market - it opens itself to serious abuse, in the same way Wall Street bankers abused the system and look where this led us? IPv4 is a *serious* show-stopper wrt the Internet's future development. The Internet we are seeing today is still primarily accessed by computers but tomorrow, and tomorrow isn't far away, we're going to see increased use by mobile devices. There are also now several commercial products out there to access your home PC remotely. Next on the tab is the concept of having a home multimedia server that can be accessed remotely. And then we fall into consumer electronics - new TVs are now all digital-enabled & the rest of the "home entertainment" system is quickly becoming all digital. The "young generations" do not know CDs - their music travels on digital music players & laptops. And then comes the "Network of things" where sensors will talk to each other. This is just about to hit us, and our dinosaur IPv4 will be as suited to this as the steam engine is to the modern hydrid car. IPv6 will enable us to have cheap devices all connected to the Internet. With instability creeping in the system, we risk several high profile technical failures with repercussions not dissimilar to the current failures in the banking sector. Do we really want this? I shall be going to the ICANN Cairo conference and would be happy to discuss these matters in person. Come on, let's do something about this impending doom. I've lived the DOTCOM boom years and met with teenagers who told me they were going to conquer the world - *and they did*. IPv6 has the ability to infuse a breath of life in Internetting & the Internet Economy worldwide - on every continent. Seize the day. Don't wait until someone tells you that you've failed. Sorry for the length of the message & thanks for reading, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D. E-mail:<ocl(a)gih.com> | http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

3 4

2007-08 Review Period extended until 4 November 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Ana Matic 22 Oct '08

22 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2007-08 has been extended until 4 November 2008. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net. Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC

1 0

2007-01 Proposal Accepted (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by Filiz Yilmaz 22 Oct '08

22 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2007-01 Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2007-01 has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html Information regarding the implementation of the proposal at the RIPE NCC will follow. Thank you for your input. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0