July 2009 - address-policy-wg

Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
by Jeroen Wunnink 24 Aug '09

24 Aug '09

Members, I'd like to re-open the discussion for http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html which is still pending approval. In the current IPv4 address policy, routability on the internet is not a factor that is allowed to be taken into account when a PI space is requested. Yet anything smaller then a /24 is pretty much useless since most providers filter anything below /24 out. -- Met vriendelijke groet, Jeroen Wunnink, EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder systeembeheer(a)easyhosting.nl telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes http://www.easyhosting.nl http://www.easycolocate.nl

22 39

2008-07 Discussion Period extended until 24 August 2009 (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
by Ingrid Wijte 20 Aug '09

20 Aug '09

PDP Number: 2008-07 Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources Dear Colleagues, The Discussion Period for the proposal 2008-07 has been extended until 24 August 2009. The text of the policy proposal 2008-07 has been revised. We have published the new version (version 3) today. In the new version, new members, requesting an initial allocation, are also asked about the utilisation and documentation of all address resources they hold, including pre-RIR registrations. In version 2 this was only proposed for additional allocations. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-07.html As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

7 10

2009-08 New Draft Document Published (IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs)
by Filiz Yilmaz 19 Aug '09

19 Aug '09

PDP Number: 2009-08 IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2009-08 has been revised based on the community feedback. We have published the new version (version 2.0) today. The draft document for the proposal has also been published as well as the impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-08.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-472-draft2009-08.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 13 August 2009. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [ncc-services-wg] New RIPE NCC Procedural Document Available
by David Monosov 30 Jul '09

30 Jul '09

Dear ncc-services-wg, address-policy-wg, >From the document: [...] 4.2 Violation of RIPE Policy, Law or Contract The RIPE NCC will de-register the independent Internet number resources in case of a fundamental breach of contract by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or violation of RIPE Policy by the End User. [...] IANAL, so please forgive me if this course of inquiry is completely misguided, but does this not explicitly put the validity of resource assignments in the hands of Dutch courts and Dutch prosecutors? RIPE NCC, as an organization domiciled in the Netherlands would at all times have to comply with valid court orders. However, prior to the existence of a direct contractual relationship with end users and this policy, RIPE NCC merely served as a custodian for a database. Challenging the contents of this database would have been a legal adventure. With the introduction of complete contractual chain through RIPE NCC, a LIR, and the end user, combined with this formal explicit policy to which the end user and the LIR must agree - isn't there a potential loophole being created for an enterprising litigant to impose Dutch legislation where it is might be favorable to their cause on foreign end users? Certainly, if this interpretation isn't overly naive, such a loophole was not the intention of policy 2007-01. Has the RIPE NCC received any legal counseling on this matter, and would it be willing to publish the opinion they were provided with? -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov Andrea Cima wrote: > [Apologies for duplicate emails] > > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: > ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources Contractual > Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User" > > This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in > the contractual relationship between the End User of independent > Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry > (LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may > de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to > those resources once they are de-registered. > > The new document is available at: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html > > Kind regards, > > Andrea Cima > RIPE NCC

5 7

Re: [ncc-services-wg] New RIPE NCC Procedural Document Available
by Michiel Klaver 27 Jul '09

27 Jul '09

At 16-7-2009 16:53, Andrea Cima wrote: > [Apologies for duplicate emails] > > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: > ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources Contractual > Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User" > > This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in > the contractual relationship between the End User of independent > Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry > (LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may > de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to > those resources once they are de-registered. > > The new document is available at: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html > > Kind regards, > > Andrea Cima > RIPE NCC >From the document: The End User contact email addresses listed in the RIPE Database object are notified by the RIPE NCC [...] I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand on the matter of unilateral contract termination, e-mail notifications are not legally binding by Dutch law. You need certified registered postal mail with proof of delivery. In the case of a network that seized to exist and the resources become void and invalid, e-mail correspondention with that network might not be possible anymore. When applying for resources, one has to submit company registration documents and the corresponding organisation object created at the RIPE database should contain the same data. This data should be sufficient to track down and send out notifications to the correct holder by postal mail. Please consult your legal department on this matter and update the procedures described at the document. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver IT Professional

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] Spectrum and IP address reservations
by tvest＠eyeconomics.com 25 Jul '09

25 Jul '09

On Jul 20, 2009, at 4:38 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I forward information about a study conducted by NERA on spectrum > auctions. > Not directly applicable to IP addresses, but has some relevance to > current discussions about attempts to reserve resources for new > entrants vs. incumbents. Bear in mind, of course, that the study was > produced by Telus, an incumbent operator, and discount for that; the > point is that we need to pay attention to the economic reasoning > underlying the finding; which is that policies designed to "help" > competitors can have unintended consequences that may encourage > conslidation and higher prices. Hi Milton, Clarifying question: what are you referring to exactly by "policies designed to 'help' competitors," and why are you choosing to reduce the question of routing and addressing system openness to this one narrow dimension? I (among others) have written a lot about the importances of keeping the door open for "new entrants," but not all new entrants are "competitors" -- nor is competition the only reason for incumbent service providers (and everybody else) to regard such openness as a critical institutional priority. To illustrate, I've never heard anyone claim that the *only* reason why it was a good idea to move from NCP addressing to classful IP was to enable competition. Ditto, the move from classful IP to CIDR; then as before, the prospect of continuous competition (including competition by emerging new entrants) was just one of many reasons to support the preservation of addressing and routing system openness. I'm assuming that whatever you find persuasive in this NERA document would not also implicate those past policy choices, because I don't think you'd find much sympathy for the idea that the "unintended consequences" of those decisions were/are so bad that they outweigh they *intended* consequences (i.e., a future with max. 256 independent addressing and routing system participants). Since most of the subscribers to these lists are not economists, it would be helpful if you could briefly summarize the "underlying economic reasoning" that you find particularly compelling in this study. If it was less onerous, I'd also request that you clarify what you regard to be the right way to balance intended vs. unintended policy choices, and "historically/experientially informed" vs. "idealized, theoretically informed" expectations about the future -- but perhaps a sentence or two of clarification on the NERA "reasoning" would suffice. Thanks, TV

17 31

Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: The price of address space
by trejrco＠gmail.com 24 Jul '09

24 Jul '09

That doesn't answer what you believe about all those deploying v6, for whatever reasons they are deploying it ... (Reasons that vary from environment to environment) If you want me to start listing the technical merits of IPv6 I would first point you to a plethora of sources - working groups, RFCs, whitepapers, new product lines and modes of communication, etc. - are you really asking for a single email to encompass 10+ years of work by hundreds+ people? ((I can (and do!) talk about IPv6 for a week at a time and am still time-constrained to present all of the how's, why's, and what's of IPv6 ... The majority of this time is presenting IPv6 things which are technically better than their IPv4 analogs)) FWIW, I would also include entire conversations about how NAT is not a panacea, and already breaks / limits application capabilities, carries 'costs' of it's own (both literal $, packet/forwarding overhead, security), etc. Again - not a single aspect that can readily be presented in a single email (feel free to ref. BEHAVE, for example) Again - I am not opposed to efforts to make NAT more transparent / functional ... PMP, ALD, UPnP, perhaps e2e, etc. - however I see none of these as a replacement for IPv6, nor any other aspect of IPv6 that is a deal-breaker. Imperfections that perhaps need to be mitigated (whether that is a protocol or an implementation 'fix' remains to be seen) - but nothing preventing me (or anyone else) from using v6 today (or, even more common - belated vendor support - ugh). /TJ ------Original Message------ From: Masataka Ohta To: TJ Evans Cc: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: The price of address space Sent: Jul 23, 2009 18:26 trejrco(a)gmail.com wrote: > I continue to be amazed at statements like: > "Today, it is not necessary to deploy IPv6 at all." > > So, you firmly believe that everyone deploying (or preparing to > deploy) IPv6 today is ... What, wasting time? Wrong? Stupid? As I said: > Technically speaking , so true. > Today, it is not neccesary to deploy IPv6 at all. valid counter arguments to me should have technical content. Masataka Ohta Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

5 14

Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: The price of address space
by trejrco＠gmail.com 23 Jul '09

23 Jul '09

And obviously you are missing my point. I am hardly saying "This is the year"... I do not think there will a single year that will define / be defined by what boils down to the deployment of better plumbing. Was there ever a "year of www", "year of SMTP", etc.? I think you misunderstand - I do have a fairly long view here, but believe that circumstances have changed | are changing. I could say the same thing about denial, but that leads us down a very non-productive path. Probably best to agree to disagree at this point ... /TJ (Although I am still interested in your (or anyone else's, for that matter) opinion of those deploying / planning to deploy / etc. IPv6 ... ) ------Original Message------ From: Masataka Ohta To: TJ Evans Cc: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: The price of address space Sent: Jul 23, 2009 21:19 TJ wrote: > I do ... and have seen many "This is the year of IPv6" style statements, > which is not what I am saying. > Sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree - I see that quite a bit has changed > WRT IPv6. > The protocol itself has been tweaked, the implementations of the protocol > have evolved, the deployment guidelines for both and the understanding of > all three of those things has been escalating rapidly over the last > ~couple-few years ... So obviously, you are saying "This is the year of IPv6". If you could have had a longer retrospective view, you could have noticed that your reasoning has been repeated so many times. Masataka Ohta Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

1 0

2009-02 Proposal Accepted (Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC)
by Filiz Yilmaz 23 Jul '09

23 Jul '09

PDP Number: 2009-02 Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2009-02 has been accepted by the RIPE community. A new RIPE policy document, "Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC", is now published and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-476.html The proposal is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-02.html Thank you for your input. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

long term useful life expectancy for IPv4
by bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com 23 Jul '09

23 Jul '09

would like to move the discussion to: http://www.longbets.org/about seems like a better place to hold this debate than policy fora. --bill

1 0