October 2010 - address-policy-wg

2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
by Emilio Madaio 26 Apr '11

26 Apr '11

Dear Colleagues, Following the feedback received at RIPE 60, the proposal 2006-05 was taken over by a new proposer and a new version was produced. The draft document for the new version of the proposal has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html and the draft document at: http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-492-draft2006-05.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 November 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

10 16

Proposal 2010-2
by Milton L Mueller 01 Nov '10

01 Nov '10

> And even there're some economical implications, the proposal itself > isn't primary about money and cost of IPv4 address, this is technical > proposal. It's about address distribution to new and existing LIRs. As long as addresses are scarce, there is no such thing as a purely technical allocation proposal. Any allocation mechanism involves a competitive relationship among LIRs for available resources, and any policy distributes costs and benefits among the contending parties. > And we have to care about new LIRs, we need to reserve some address space > for them - as lots of internet resources will be accessible only over > IPv4 for long period after depletion. It's about survivance of free > allocatable IPv4 address space as long as possible. I agree with this concern, but you seem unaware of the possibilities of strategic behavior by LIRs. Consider: LIR 1, an incumbent, proves it needs a /16 to meet demand caused by growth in the number of its existing customers. LIR 2, a startup, also proves it needs a /16 to start up Your policy privileges any actor in the category LIR 2 and penalizes actors in category LIR 1. Question 1: why are the customers of LIR 2 more important than the customers of LIR 1? Question 2: why wouldn't LIR 1 form a new company and call it a startup to get privileged access to addresses? Or, might LIR 3, LIR 1's long standing competitor, form a new LIR to gain an advantage in the competition for resources? One could argue for your position by noting that LIRs who already have some blocks of ipv4 are in a position to economize on and/or NAT those addresses, whereas an ISP without any can't do that. That provides some answer to Q1. But it doesn't deal with the problems around Q2.

5 8

Agenda (first draft) for RIPE 61 in Rome
by Gert Doering 31 Oct '10

31 Oct '10

Hi APWG folks, RIPE meeting orga, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Rome in the following three time slots: Wednesday, November 17, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, November 17, 11:00 - 12:30 Thursday, November 18, 09:00 - 11:30 The exact time lines depend a bit on how much discussion is going on, so we might move items one time slot "up" or "down". If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or of we need to change anything, please let us know. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. Current Policy Topics - Emilio Madaio [20-30 min] - global policy overview "what's going on?" - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) - overview over concluded proposals in the RIPE region since RIPE60 2008-07 Efficient Use of Historical IPv4 Resources - withdrawn 2009-01 Global Policy ... Allocation of IPv4 to RIRs - accepted 2010-03 Global Policy State in RIPE PDP - withdrawn 2010-04 80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup - accepted - brief overview over new proposals (2010-05, 2010-06, 2010-07) C. Document Cosmetic Surgeries Project - Emilio Madaio [10 min] - update on current status - how to go forward? D. Rough Edges of the current policies [30 min] Report from the RIPE NCC Registration Services department on issues and unintended side-effects showing up in the daily implementation of the RIPE policies. Presentation from Alex Le Heux from the RIPE NCC RS: o transfer policy and problems with business take-overs [problem statement] o PI size distribution and its history (growing assignments) [background info] o IPv6 PI vs. IPv4 PI - background data [background info] Discussion about the transfer policy issues, and what to do about it. E. More Rough Edges of the current policies [10 min] "things that have been come up in various fora" o interpretation of "utilisation threshold" in IPv6 policy regarding /48 and /56s - proposal by Arno Meulenkamp for wording cleanup: "It might be good to rephrase the text to "Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. ISP/LIR) satisfies the evaluation threshold of past address utilisation in terms of assigned address space in units of /56 blocks." (5.2.1, discussion on ipv6-ops(a)cluenet.de) [came up in discussion on the ipv6-ops list, presentation by Gert Doering] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Even More Rough Edges of the current policies [45 min] o "end site" definition - RIPE 481, 2.9 2 ADSL links, not connected networks, same legal organization -> is there a conflict or not? 1 /48 or 2? do we need to change the policy / clarify the policy text? [came up in discussion between the WG chairs, presentation by Sander Steffann, discussion] o definition of "openness" in the IPv6 EIX policy initiated by 2010-07, but widening the scope from "wording change" to "figure out what the policy should be, *then* talk about specific wording" [presentation by Gert Doering, discussion] o generic IPv6 PI discussion(?) differences between IPv4 PI and IPv6 PI are being discussed since RIPE 59 - but no specific proposals on the table yet. Is there a need to change the policy, or is it "mostly fine"? [presentation by Gert Doering, discussion] J. New Proposals since RIPE 60 -> Discussion of open policy proposals, Part 1 (new proposals) [20 min] 2010-05 Global Policy for IPv4 Allocation by the IANA post exhaustion (Jason Schiller et. al.) 2010-07 Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP (presentation?) L. Discussion of open policy proposals, Part 2 (ongoing proposals) 2008-08 Initial Certification Policy for PA Space Holders [15 min] (Nigel Titley, CA TF - version 2 update) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- T. Discussion of open policy proposals (old proposals, part II) ---- old policy proposals ---- 2006-05 PI Assignment Size [15 min] (revived, Nick Hilliard) 2010-01 Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies [15 min] (Nick Hilliard) 2010-02 Allocations from the last /8 [15 min] (new combined proposal from Philip Smith and Alain Bidron) Y. Open Policy Hour "The Open Policy Hour (OPH) is a showcase for your policy ideas. If you have a policy proposal you'd like to debut, prior to formally submitting it, here is your opportunity." (Idea from ARIN policy meeting) o Martin Hannigan / Jason Schiller: proposal about Inter-RIR transfers Z. AOB

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2
by Jeffrey A. Williams 29 Oct '10

29 Oct '10

david Milton and all, David is mostly correct here I believe. However first, if there was a more concerted effort to reclaim unused IPv4 addresses much of the cost problem would be mitigated, but still not all. Secondly, if a better replacement for IPv4 than IPv6 was better promoted several years ago now, there would be less of a cost impact problem. Sadly the RIR's in particular are not interested in doing a better more concerted job of reclaiming unused/horded IPv4 addresses and Jim Bound did such a bang up job of promoting a flawed replacement for IPv4, namely IPv6 that the cost of converting is so high that likely customers are reluctant to release their horded/unused IPv4 addresses accordingly. -----Original Message----- >From: David Conrad <drc(a)virtualized.org> >Sent: Oct 29, 2010 4:21 PM >To: Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> >Cc: "'address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net'" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> >Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2 > >On Oct 29, 2010, at 4:17 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> I agree with this concern, but you seem unaware of the possibilities of strategic behavior by LIRs. >> >> Consider: >> LIR 1, an incumbent, proves it needs a /16 to meet demand caused by growth in the number of its existing customers. >> LIR 2, a startup, also proves it needs a /16 to start up >> >> Your policy privileges any actor in the category LIR 2 and penalizes actors in category LIR 1. >> > >> Question 1: why are the customers of LIR 2 more important than the customers of LIR 1? > >They aren't. LIR 1, being forced to jump through different hoops, is considered less important. Or, to put it in less inflammatory terms, is considered more able to absorb the additional costs. > >> Question 2: why wouldn't LIR 1 form a new company and call it a startup to get privileged access to addresses? > >A question of cost. LIR 1 would likely run the numbers to see which is cheaper: > >a) create a subsidiary as you describe >b) purchase the necessary space off the black/grey market >c) sue RIPE for discriminatory business practices aimed at damaging LIR 1's business (well, OK, since it isn't the US, this probably won't happen). >d) migrate to IPv6 and hope no customer wants IPv4 access that can't be accommodated via NAT. > >> Or, might LIR 3, LIR 1's long standing competitor, form a new LIR to gain an advantage in the competition for resources? > >You mean LIR 3 might lie? :-) > >> One could argue for your position by noting that LIRs who already have some blocks of ipv4 are in a position to economize on and/or NAT those addresses, whereas an ISP without any can't do that. That provides some answer to Q1. But it doesn't deal with the problems around Q2. > >It all boils down to a question of cost. Even economizing/NATing/etc. has a cost so a rational business will look at the various costs and do the cost/benefit analysis. > >Regards, >-drc > Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "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] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Proposal 2010-02
by Sander Steffann 29 Oct '10

29 Oct '10

Hello working group, The review phase of proposal 2010-02 has ended. During this review phase no comments were received. Without any feedback this proposal can't move forward. I think that it is important that we, as a working group, decide about what we are going to do with the last IPv4 addresses. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-02.html So: please comment on this proposal. Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

11 18

2010-07 New Policy Proposal (Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP)
by Emilio Madaio 27 Oct '10

27 Oct '10

Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-07.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 17 November 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

10 14

2010-04 Proposal Accepted (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup)
by Emilio Madaio 26 Oct '10

26 Oct '10

Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached and the proposal for a change to the RIPE Document ripe-492, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-04.html The updated RIPE Document is ripe-498 and is available at: http://ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-498.html Thank you for your input. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2008-08 New Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders)
by Emilio Madaio 07 Oct '10

07 Oct '10

Dear Colleagues, Following the feedback received, the draft document for the proposal 2008-08 described is edited and published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2008-08-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 4 November 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0