August 2009 - address-policy-wg

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs)
by IP-Office KPN 24 Sep '09

24 Sep '09

All, I support the general idea of the proposal, but I have some questions: The proposal states that (last paragraph): "If an organisation already received a PI assignment before becoming an LIR, the PI assignment should be returned upon receiving an IPv6 allocation if there are no specific routing requirements to justify both." First question: Only in this last paragraph of the proposal there is mention of "PI assignment" as opposed to "IPv6 assignment". Was this done intentionally? Second question: Is it (therefore) not possible to become a LIR and just keep the PI assignment instead of asking for a IPv6 PA allocation? I can imagine that if an organisation doesn't want to have Independent Assignment Request and Maintenance Agreements with LIRs, instead of entering into a End User Assignment Agreement with RIPE, the organisation wishes to become a LIR (same costs, more service) while wanting to keep the previously assigned PI space (and public AS number). Third question: Also, (just to be sure) as this Policy document exclusively deals with IPv6, does this policy proposal also have impact on the IPv4 PI space an organisation already has when it wants to become an LIR? With kind regards, Andries Hettema nl.kpn-bbt IP-Office KPN Internet 070 45 13398 ip-office(a)kpn.com

2 1

The final /8 policy proposals, part 3
by Sander Steffann 22 Sep '09

22 Sep '09

Hello everyone, It has been quiet for some time now, so I think we should start to discuss the final /8 proposals again. In part 2 of the discussion, we discussed how many addresses an LIR should be able to get from the final /8. I'll try to summarize that part of the discussion. Please correct me if I am wrong or if I missed something: Most people preferred option b: All requests are downscaled by a certain factor Some people preferred option a: Everyone gets one (and only one) fixed size block There were comments that IPv4 would never run out, but let's assume that it will run out. In the worst (best?) case we won't need this final /8 policy, so it doesn't hurt to be prepared when we do need it. Because most people preferred option b, let's discuss some of the details to see if we can make that work. If we are going to downscale address space requests, how should we do that? Some issues: - If a company demonstrates the need for a /20, we could give them (for example) a /26. Smaller organisations would end up with even smaller amounts of address space. Currently prefixes longer than a /24 can not really be routed on 'the Internet' (for some definition of 'Internet'). Do we expect this to change, or do we have to make the minimum allocation size a /24 so that LIRs receiving address space can use it? - Do we want a maximum allocation size? This might be useful to prevent a few large companies to grab most of the address space, but it might also be unnecessary. - Do we want to make exceptions for certain situations where downscaling is not possible? For example a server farm with many HTTPS sites can't use less IP addresses than the number of websites (with the current protocols). I would like to leave PI assignments out od the discussion for now. I think we have enough PA related questions to discuss, but don't worry: we will get to the PI discussion later. As before: please stay on topic. This discussion is hard enough as it is :) Thanks, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

6 18

RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1
by Sander Steffann 27 Aug '09

27 Aug '09

>> I was thinking about making sure that new companies can have >> a few IPv4 addresses to be able to talk to the IPv4-only >> world. If we do that, then nobody can complain. If they think >> they don't have enough addresses, well, so has the rest of >> the world. If they can't get any IPv4 addresses at all this >> might be perceived as unfair or anti-competitive. > > Fair enough. However this could be solved by the market if > some ISPs offer v4-to-v6 gateway services to customers whose > networks are pure v6. That would mean that a new ISP can only enter the market when buying a service from an existing ISP. I don't know if this would be seen as anti-competitive, but I suspect it will. Especially because we could make policy that prevents (well, significantly postpones) that situation. - Sander PS: I make the assumption here that not everything will be reachable over native IPv6 when the new company wants to start. I think this is a reasonable assumption for the first years at least.

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1
by Sander Steffann 27 Aug '09

27 Aug '09

Hi Michael, Thank you for your feedback. > ??? > After RIPE runs out of IP addresses, we might be seen as > anti-competitive? I was thinking about making sure that new companies can have a few IPv4 addresses to be able to talk to the IPv4-only world. If we do that, then nobody can complain. If they think they don't have enough addresses, well, so has the rest of the world. If they can't get any IPv4 addresses at all this might be perceived as unfair or anti-competitive. - Sander

2 1

The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1
by Sander Steffann 27 Aug '09

27 Aug '09

Hello again, I'm trying to keep this policy proposal discussion on-topic. We have already discussed two parts, and we should really focus on this third part now. If we keep going back to the beginning we will never get work done... I'll repeat my questions to the list: - If a company demonstrates the need for a /20, we could give them (for example) a /26. Smaller organisations would end up with even smaller amounts of address space. Currently prefixes longer than a /24 can not really be routed on 'the Internet' (for some definition of 'Internet'). Do we expect this to change, or do we have to make the minimum allocation size a /24 so that LIRs receiving address space can use it? - Do we want a maximum allocation size? This might be useful to prevent a few large companies to grab most of the address space, but it might also be unnecessary. - Do we want to make exceptions for certain situations where downscaling is not possible? For example a server farm with many HTTPS sites can't use less IP addresses than the number of websites (with the current protocols). Jim is suggesting that we don't change any policies for the final /8. That would be a downscaling factor of 1. With the current allocation rate of the RIPE NCC (see http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html, graph 28e) that would mean that the final /8 will be allocated in about 4 to 6 months. Michael proposed to hold a meeting to divide the final /8. After that happens a new entrant will not be able to get any IPv4 addresses from the NCC. This might be seen as the established companies (us) trying to prevent new competition... We now have the chance to prevent that situation, and we should make good policies now to prevent that from happening. At least in the first couple of years after IANA runs out of IPv4 addresses. We can't just think about the current LIRs. If we do a bad/anti-competitive/etc job here some governments will have a good excuse to take the IP address allocation right away from the RIPE community. They might leave us alone, but do we really want to count on that? Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

3 2

AW: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3
by Marcus.Gerdon 26 Aug '09

26 Aug '09

Michael, sounds like your company is faring rather well... sending at least one person to any meeting, just jet'ing for a weeks meeting to Dubai... You've supposedly not seen any 'costs optimized by reduced staff' guy around for a long time. Maybe I should apply for a job? > If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough > to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. > Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because > they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no > difference. I think you're definitely wrong on this - and imho somewhat quite arrogant by that. RIPE's open to anybody, anybody being allowed to become a member. But excluding a bunch of members from the meetings by sheer cost (or time) is fine for you. The current practice of having to be physically on site for a vote has to stop soonest possible. We're in internet business - and rely on phys presence. That's ridicilous. Btw: No need to hint for proxy votes - who's trusting opponents? And what are proxy votes good for when not having heard or seen the discussion in before? Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon(a)versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Geschäftsführer: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von > michael.dillon(a)bt.com > Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. August 2009 13:42 > An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 > > > > No, it's not a fair or open way to do that. [What about those > > who can't physically get to the meeting? Web/phone > > participation doesn't count. Who gets to vote?] > > If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough > to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. > Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because > they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no > difference. > > > It's also > > incompatible with the current Policy Development Process > > which is based on list-driven, bottom-up consensus. > > The extraordinary general meeting would not be about changing > policy, it would be about an activity plan to divide up the > remaining inventory of IPv4 addresses between the applicants > who have requested a piece of the final /8. > > > > Why do we need to decide this today, when there is little > > motivation > > > to reach a decision and not enough information available > to make a > > > decision. For instance we do not know what will be the market > > > penetration of IPv6 at the point of IANA runout. > > > > IMO this is another reason for not even trying to make a > > decision. The current policy isn't broken and doesn't need > > fixing. > > This is also a reasonable approach, i.e. I have suggested option > c) but your suggestion of option d) is also worthy of consideration. > > > I'm glad we agree about something Michael. :-) > > Perhaps we agree that simply re-evaluating options a) and b) is > not the best way to proceed? > > --Michael Dillon > > >

4 3

AW: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3
by Marcus.Gerdon 26 Aug '09

26 Aug '09

Hi! > There are dozens of cost optimization guys around, but > the cost of one RIPE extraordinary general meeting doesn't > worry us because we are putting a lot of effort into IPv6 > trials and we can see light at the end of the tunnel. What's meetings got to do with IPv6 trials? > If your company isn't doing internal trials of IPv6 with > selected customers, then yes, you should probably start > looking for another job. Did you take a look at the v6-dfz before writing this? At a quick glance in Frankfurt I see slightly more v6 downstream asn advertised from 8881 than from 5400. ;-) But enough on that... that's no topic for an apwg discussion. Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon(a)versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Geschäftsführer: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von > michael.dillon(a)bt.com > Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. August 2009 16:35 > An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 > > > > sounds like your company is faring rather well... sending at > > least one person to any meeting, just jet'ing for a weeks > > meeting to Dubai... You've supposedly not seen any 'costs > > optimized by reduced staff' guy around for a long time. > > There are dozens of cost optimization guys around, but > the cost of one RIPE extraordinary general meeting doesn't > worry us because we are putting a lot of effort into IPv6 > trials and we can see light at the end of the tunnel. > > Don't ever forget that soon nobody will really NEED IPv4 > addresses any more because IPv6 is a viable alternative. > If your company isn't doing internal trials of IPv6 with > selected customers, then yes, you should probably start > looking for another job. > > > > If some people feel that the meeting is not important > > enough to make > > > an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. > > > Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or > > because they've > > > already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no difference. > > > > I think you're definitely wrong on this - and imho somewhat > > quite arrogant by that. > > > > RIPE's open to anybody, anybody being allowed to become a > > member. But excluding a bunch of members from the meetings by > > sheer cost (or time) is fine for you. The current practice of > > having to be physically on site for a vote has to stop > > soonest possible. > > Please do not criticise my proposal because you disagree with > how RIPE currently functions. If you have a criticism with how > RIPE members vote, please take it to the appropriate venue. If > RIPE does begin to allow remote participation and voting in a > general meeting, that doesn't change my proposal in any way. > > > We're in internet business - and rely on > > phys presence. That's ridicilous. > > It's also ridiculous that we have so little IPv6 deployment that > we have to argue over how to distribute the last few crumbs of > IPv4 addressing. Why does the Internet still rely on this ancient > protocol over 10 years after IPv6 was introduced? > > So, how do you propose to distribute the final /8 fairly? > > --Michael Dillon > >

1 0

2009-06 Last Call for Comments (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
by Ingrid Wijte 25 Aug '09

25 Aug '09

PDP Number: 2009-06 Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2009-06 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 22 September 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

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

2009-08 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs)
by Ingrid Wijte 20 Aug '09

20 Aug '09

PDP Number: 2009-08 IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2009-08 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-08.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 17 September 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0