March 2010 - address-policy-wg

80% rule, based on feedback from the NCC RS department
by Gert Doering 07 Apr '10

07 Apr '10

Hi APWG, one of the issues pointed out by Alex le Heugh from the RIPE NCC RS department at the last RIPE meeting was the "80% rule" for additional IPv4 allocations, which has multiple, contradictory definitions in the current address policy documents. See here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-59/presentations/leheux-rough-edges-… on page 17-21 and http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-484.html, section 5.3 and 5.4 The different sections of the policy text both describe the rule slightly differently. This makes it unclear how the 80% rule should be applied. Let me explain by example: - a LIR has a /16, which is at 95% utilization, and a /19 that is at 40% utilization. Over all their address space, the utilization would be 88%. - interpretation 1: "if a LIR holds multiple allocations, every *single* of them needs to be filled by 80%" would result in "the LIR will not get a new allocation, because the /19 is only at 40%" - interpretation 2: "if a LIR holds multiple allocations, the grand total of them needs to be filled by 80%" would result in "the LIR *will* get another allocation, because they have used 88%". Personally, I think that the interpretation according to 5.3 of the IPv4 address policy document ("interpretation 2") is the intention of the policy. 5.4 (sub-allocations) was added later, and has language about the 80% criteria that is misleading - this section is only concerned about sub-allocations, and "the 80% sentence" was put in there to emphasize the existing rule, not to change it (I know that from the proposer of this policy change...). Now, "just changing the text according to what the WG chair thinks" would not be the right thing - so what I think is the way forward now is to get feedback from *you*, and if there is clear guidance from the working group on resolving this ambiguity, we run a formal proposal to change the wording of the document in one way or the other. (Please don't get into sidetrack discussions on whether "80%" or "IPv4" is useful, but focus on this specific question.) thanks, and regards, Gert Doering, APWG Chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 144438 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

6 5

Easy to remember IP-address
by Sergey Gotsulyak 01 Apr '10

01 Apr '10

Gentlemen, Some days ago, I told Jaap Akkerhuis about allocation of 2.2.2.0/24 address space for our DNS-service and he advice me to contact this workgroup. Our company Ideco is located in Russia and is in the business of developing and selling Internet gateways for small and middle businesses in Russia as well as billing software for ISPs. We’re now starting a new project for Russia and Eastern Europe that will provide secure Internet access for educational institutions, commercial and non-profit organizations. We’re planning to set up a number of DNS-centers that will block malware, adult websites and phishing links. For this project we’ll need an easy to remember IP-address, for example like the one for Google Public DNS service (8.8.8.8) We have contacted RIPE NCC with a request to get a block of addresses 2.2.2.0/24, but were told that the standard procedure does not allow us to choose an address range. Is it possible to modify current Address Policy? -- Kind regards, Sergey Gotsulyak Ideco Sales Team 280 Madison Ave, Suite 912 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (800) 715-3502 Email: goz(a)idecogateway.com Web: www.idecogateway.com

13 21

2010-01 New Policy Proposal (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies)
by Ingrid Wijte 18 Mar '10

18 Mar '10

PDP Number: 2010-01 Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies 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/2010-01.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 15 April 2010. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

5 9

IPv6 allocations for 6RD
by Jan Boogman 11 Mar '10

11 Mar '10

Hi, we are planning to offer IPv6 connectivity to our xDSL and FTTH customer base via IPv6-6RD. (see <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-townsley-ipv6-6rd-01> or for a working implementation Free's presentation at RIPE-58: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/content/presentations/ipv6-free.p…>). We asked RIPE NCC for a larger than /32 allocation (because of the way how 6RD encapsulates the customers IPv4 address in his IPv6 address and also because we want to give the customer a small subnet). The IPRA now isn't sure how to proceed and after consultation with the Policy Development Manager asked me to pose the question to the community at large. What do you think, should RIPE NCC allocate larger than /32 blocks to LIRs for cases like this and not only based on the number of end-customers? Cheers Jan Swisscom IP-Plus - AS3303

13 34

Re: [ncc-services-wg] Status Update - Independent Resource Assignments (Policy Proposal 2007-01)
by David Monosov 09 Mar '10

09 Mar '10

Dear Andrew, ncc-services-wg, address-policy-wg, Thank you kindly for this update, it is encouraging to see the success of this initiative. I can't help but notice that the number of marked resources you provide in this report appears to be significantly lower than that in a similar report Andrea Cima provided to address-policy-wg on 26/10/2009 (the previous report states 23,790 resources are marked, while only 22,958 are reported as marked in this update). Could you please elaborate on the nature of this adjustment? Additionally, it has been previously mentioned that a procedural document detailing Phase 3 of the implementation of this proposal will be made available before implementation begins. Seeing that the final deadline is less than two months and a fortnight away, how soon can we expect this document to be available, and are there any operational specifics you can already share with us? -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov Andrew de la Haye wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > In March 2009, the RIPE NCC began Phase 1 of the policy implementation > "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in > the RIPE NCC Service Region". This phase focused on new assignments of > independent Internet number resources only (PI assignments, AS Numbers, > IPv6 Internet Exchange Point (IXP) assignments and Anycasting > assignments). The implementation was carried out successfully and the > majority of RIPE NCC members are aware of the policy and contractual > requirements and are able to provide the necessary documentation when > requesting independent resources on behalf of their End Users. > > Phase 2 of the policy implementation began at the end of May 2009. This > phase focuses on existing assignments (almost 27,000). In the first step > of this phase, the RIPE NCC approached LIRs and asked them to specify > whether: > - The resources were used for the LIR's network infrastructure > - The resources were used by one of the LIR's End Users > - The End User was no longer the LIR's customer > > LIRs must provide documentation for the resources marked as "My End > User" by the end of Phase 2. This documentation should be the "End User > Assignment Agreement" between the LIR and the End User regarding the > registration of the independent Internet resources the End User holds > and the official company registration documents of the End User > organisation. > > Initially, Phase 2 was scheduled to end on 31 December 2009. However, > due to the lower-than-expected number of documents received, the > deadline was first extended until 1 March 2010 and then until 17 May > 2010, which will be the final deadline. > > > The figures showing the progress of Phase 2, as of 1 March 2010, are > presented below. > > > LIRs Participating > ----------------------- > Total LIRs to participate in Phase 2: 4,903 > Number of LIRs participated at 1 March: 4,178 > Percentage of participating LIRs: 85.2% > > > Total Resources Marked > ------------------------------ > Total amount of resources to be marked in Phase 2: 26,940 > Total amount of resources marked at 1 March: 22,958 > Percentage of resources marked: 85.2% > > > Status of 22,958 Resources Marked > ------------------------------------------ > - 5,373 are marked "My Infrastructure" (23.4%) by 3,956 LIRs > - 6,025 are marked "Not My End User" (26.25%) by 712 LIRs > - 11,560 are marked "My End User" (50.35%) by 996 LIRs > > > Status of 11,560 Resources Marked "My End User" > ------------------------------------------------------------- > - 4,849 have missing documents (42%) > - 4,522 have submitted documents (39%) > - 2,189 have approved documents (19%) > > > Regards, > Andrew de la Haye

2 1