April 2010 - address-policy-wg

2010-03 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP)
by Filiz Yilmaz 14 Jul '10

14 Jul '10

PDP Number: 2010-03 Global Policy State in RIPE PDP 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/2010-03.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 18 May 2010. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

5 8

2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Allocations from the last /8)
by Ingrid Wijte 16 Jun '10

16 Jun '10

PDP Number: 2010-02 Allocations from the last /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/2010-02.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 11 May 2010. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

6 6

Policy proposal 2009-01
by Nigel Titley 29 Apr '10

29 Apr '10

Folks, As one of the authors of this proposal I'd like to get some sort of consensus together in the RIPE region so that we can move forward. All other regions have reached consensus and we are the last to do so. All other regions with the exception of Arin have adopted the policy in it's original form. Arin has modified the policy to remove the mandatory return of recovered address space to IANA, which effectively makes it a different policy. 2009-01 is a global policy which means that the same policy has to be agreed in all regions, so to all practical purposes it is doomed already. However, we still need to decide what to do with it in the RIPE region. To my mind there are four possibilities: 1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with the other regions, apart from Arin. 2. We adopt the Arin form of the proposal, thus demonstrating solidarity with Arin, but with no one else 3. We reject the proposal outright, thus demonstrating that we can't make up our minds or that we think it will never work, or something... 4. We ask the regional authors (in this case myself and Axel) to withdraw the proposal in this region. Some background may be helpful here. No one seriously expected that any address space would actually be returned as a result of this policy. It was intended as a statement that should IPv4 address space become available then it would be used for the greater good of all the registries rather than those who had already had the majority of the space already. I realise that this was a rather pious hope, but we felt that it was worth making a statement about. The Arin region's position has made it impossible to make this statement globally, but we still have the opportunity to make it here. I would like to solicit the opinions of this working group in order to try and put the matter to bed once and for all. I realise I'm making rather contentious statements here, but I'm hoping to provoke a bit of discussion. Please can the working group indicate how they would like to move this forward. All the best Nigel

23 39

AW: address-policy-wg digest, Vol 1 #1137 - 1 msg
by Bubeck Eberhard 22 Apr '10

22 Apr '10

Pop ----- Originalnachricht ----- Von: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net <address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net> An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Gesendet: Tue Apr 20 12:00:03 2010 Betreff: address-policy-wg digest, Vol 1 #1137 - 1 msg Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. 2010-03 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP) (Filiz Yilmaz) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: "Filiz Yilmaz" <filiz(a)ripe.net> To: policy-announce(a)ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Reply-To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:14:43 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-03 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP) PDP Number: 2010-03 Global Policy State in RIPE PDP 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/2010-03.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 18 May 2010. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC End of address-policy-wg Digest

1 0

[Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01
by bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com 21 Apr '10

21 Apr '10

On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:34 PM, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > and a very pleasant evening. > > a few questions. > > IPv6 on your radar? > Looking at options for addressing your future v6 needs? > > Have you looked at the IETF/ID in the subject line? > > if you think something like this is a good idea, worth > persuing, I'd like to hear from you. > and as Friend Bush reminds, if you think this idea is lunacy - I'd like to hear that as well. --bill

1 0

Draft Agenda for upcoming APWG meeting at RIPE 60
by Gert Doering 20 Apr '10

20 Apr '10

Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Prague in the following three time slots: Wednesday, May 5, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 5, 11:00 - 12:30 Thursday, May 6, 14:00 - 15:30 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 (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. Current Policy Topics - Filiz Yilmaz - overview over concluded proposals 2009-03 [run out fairly] - accepted [withdrawn proposals, if any] - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) C. New Proposals since RIPE 59 -> Discussion of open policy proposals, Part 1 (new proposals) 2010-01 Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policy (Nick Hilliard) ????-?? Global Policy State in RIPE PDP (Dave Wilson) [work in progress, no formal number assigned yet] ????-?? Wording Cleanup regarding 80% rule for PA allocations (Gert Doering) [to be submitted in the next days] ????-?? Allocations from the last /8 (new combined proposal from Philip Smith and Alain Bidron, just presented here, to be discussed on Thursday) [work in progress, formal number to be assigned next week] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- K. Document Cosmetic Surgeries Project - Filiz Yilmaz - feedback received on the first set of changes - how to go forward? L. "Authorship of RIPE Policy Documents" - Filiz Yilmaz This presentation seeks to reach community agreement on how to document and acknowledge the role of people that propose changes to RIPE Internet Resource Allocation and Assignment policies. M. Ideas how to tackle any problems that have been experienced by the NCC Registration Services Department. (open discussion, based on the report and comments on Wednesday) - try to come up with consensus on what we think "IPv6 PI" should be used for, and should not be used for, and then start a PDP proposal to adjust the policy according to it (if needed) - data-center operators and their customers - the "IPv4 loophole" -> customer access links considered infra (and thus, single-address customers with NAT can be numbered from IPv4 PI, but not from IPv6 PI) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, 12:30-14:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- T. Discussion of open policy proposals (old proposals) ---- old policy proposals ---- 2006-05 PI Assignment Size 2008-07 Ensuring Efficient Use of Historical IPv4 Resources (Philip Smith) 2008-08 Initial Certification Policy for PA Space Holders (Nigel Titley, CA TF - update what happened since RIPE 59) 2009-01 Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to RIRs (5 RIR design team) ---- directly related to IPv4 run-out --- 2008-06 Use of Final /8 (Philip Smith) 2009-04 IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment (Alain Bidron) these two proposals will be dropped, and replaced by a new combined proposal: ????-?? Last /8 (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) Z. AOB -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 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

1 1

Fwd: Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01
by Axel Pawlik 14 Apr '10

14 Apr '10

On 14/04/2010 09:48, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > I believe you are correct Carlos. (1.) would potentially move > legacy IPv4 resource into the ARIN region from everywhere else > in the world. (*) Just a clarification... As this is a global policy proposal, all RIR regions would have to be in agreement for it to be implemented. In that case, yes, resources returned to IANA would later be re-allocated, possibly to other regions than they came from. As things stand today, with the ARIN community having agreed on a different text than the other RIRs' communities, this proposal fails as a global policy; which means that it will not be implemented. cheers, Axel > > * Except some places which have their own legal restrictions on > movement of IP space outside thier politicial boundaries. When > I was on the ARIN BoT, I seem to remember a few countries which > placed such laws on their respective books. It was generally > considered to be a bad idea ... and yet ARIN seems to have > followed suit. > > --bill > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 08:18:33AM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> Going forward with (1.) means that potentially recovered space within >> RIPE-land can end up in the hands of someone inside ARIN-land ??? >> >> Imho, those who wish not to contribute should not have access to the >> recovered resources. Solidarity (even if it's about a legacy resource...) >> sounds like a positive thing, however, if it's possible for >> non-contributors to benefit, another word comes to mind. And in that case >> i would be in favour of (3.) or (4.). >> >> >> Regards, >> Carlos >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Nigel Titley wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> As one of the authors of this proposal I'd like to get some sort of >>> consensus together in the RIPE region so that we can move forward. >>> >>> All other regions have reached consensus and we are the last to do so. >>> >>> All other regions with the exception of Arin have adopted the policy in >>> it's original form. Arin has modified the policy to remove the mandatory >>> return of recovered address space to IANA, which effectively makes it a >>> different policy. 2009-01 is a global policy which means that the same >>> policy has to be agreed in all regions, so to all practical purposes it >>> is doomed already. However, we still need to decide what to do with it >>> in the RIPE region. To my mind there are four possibilities: >>> >>> 1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with >>> the other regions, apart from Arin. >>> >>> 2. We adopt the Arin form of the proposal, thus demonstrating solidarity >>> with Arin, but with no one else >>> >>> 3. We reject the proposal outright, thus demonstrating that we can't >>> make up our minds or that we think it will never work, or something... >>> >>> 4. We ask the regional authors (in this case myself and Axel) to >>> withdraw the proposal in this region. >>> >>> Some background may be helpful here. No one seriously expected that any >>> address space would actually be returned as a result of this policy. It >>> was intended as a statement that should IPv4 address space become >>> available then it would be used for the greater good of all the >>> registries rather than those who had already had the majority of the >>> space already. I realise that this was a rather pious hope, but we felt >>> that it was worth making a statement about. >>> >>> The Arin region's position has made it impossible to make this statement >>> globally, but we still have the opportunity to make it here. I would >>> like to solicit the opinions of this working group in order to try and >>> put the matter to bed once and for all. >>> >>> I realise I'm making rather contentious statements here, but I'm hoping >>> to provoke a bit of discussion. Please can the working group indicate >>> how they would like to move this forward. >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> Nigel >>> >>> > >

4 4

2008-06 (Use of final /8) and 2009-04 (IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment) Policy Proposals Withdrawn
by Ingrid Wijte 13 Apr '10

13 Apr '10

PDP Number: 2008-06 Use of final /8 PDP Number: 2009-04 IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment Dear Colleagues These proposals have been withdrawn. They are now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-06.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-04.html The authors decided that they want to make a new proposal (see proposal 2010-02). Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

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

Re: Easy to remember IP-address
by Sergey Gotsulyak 07 Apr '10

07 Apr '10

Jim Reid wrote: > I'm not sure Shane that an allocation of vanity addresses would fit > with these goals. If it does, then fine. Though I'm doubtful. If > there were "too many" vanity assignments, that may well fragment the > unused space in a way that prevents another LIR getting a contiguous > allocation that's big enough for their genuine technical needs. It > might also encourage a land-grab by people gobbling up vanity space > that they don't actually need in the hope that they could sell it on > later. Jim, I fully understand this concern. An overly large number of assignments might fragment the address space and lead to people trying take advantage of an opportunity to resell addresses. Something like Cybersquatting that is practiced with domain names. However I think that the RIPE community is capable of stopping that. That would require formal and very serious requirements for requesting vanity addresses for certain projects that will benefit the people. Honestly, I'm not even sure that there will be so many people interested in getting such ip-addresses if the process is a formal and not a simple one. Besides, we would very much like for our request to be reviewed by the committee from RIPE NCC in a speacial manner. Because we're requesting these addresses not for resale or direct monetary benefit and think that if we're given them all parties are going to win. We're trying to make the internet a safer place for millions of people and improve the present technical infrastructure at the same time by creating a distributed network of available and effective DNS-servers in Russia and Europe. I can't speak for Europe but in Russia and its neighboring countries the existing DNS-structure has a lot of problems such as slow channels and outdated equipment, lack of DNSSEC support and protection from attacks. All this we want to change. -- Kind regards, Sergey Gotsulyak

3 2