April 2012 - address-policy-wg

Cosmetic Surgery Project: Extended Review Period on New Draft, Document for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space
by Emilio Madaio 26 Apr '12

26 Apr '12

Dear colleagues, As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC is moving forward with a review of the policy document ripe-302, "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 address space in the RIPE NCC Service Region". A draft of the policy document is online and ready for community review at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-doc… The Address Policy Working Group Co-Chairs decided to extend the review period until 24 May 2012 to allow the community more time to give their feedback. Please send your feedback on this draft document to the Address Policy Working Group at <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy
by Hank Nussbacher 25 Apr '12

25 Apr '12

At 02:42 PM 4/19/2012 +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote: >This aspect of the policy regarding legacy holders needs clarification: > >"Leave data as it is in the RIPE Registry. The Legacy Resource Holder will >not be able to add to or alter their data and will not have access to any >RIPE NCC services such as reverse delegation and certification." > >It is likely that in response to this policy legacy holders will choose to >use an alternate registrar for the services you are precluding them from >using (e.g., reverse delegation and certification). In that case RIPE NCC >will need to negotiate an interoperability or interconnection agreement >with these service alternate providers to ensure that a globally >applicable unique registration occurs. > >If RIPE NCC is not willing to do that, it appears to be attempting to >leverage its monopoly to force legacy holders into purchase and use of >their services, something that raises obvious competition policy issues. I >wouldn't advise you to do down that path. The problem is not so much the whois database but rather the delegated file which is the more "official" data for all RIRs: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest When ARIN and RIPE did their ERX thing in 2003, ARIN mistakenly transferred 4600+ IP blocks to RIPE with country=EU rather than country=xx. There are numerous software packages that use the delegated data to do geolocation. Examples: http://code.google.com/p/ci-geoip/ http://16bytes.com/geo_locating-html/ https://metacpan.org/module/IP::Country::DB_File::Builder http://www.codecodex.com/wiki/IP_Address_to_Country So your IP block would not say your country code but rather EU. There is one commercial firewall that uses the delegated data incorrectly as well and hides the details behind something more powerful than a firewall - a lawyerwall. RIPE NCC is unwilling to fix this, unless one submits the legacy IP space to be listed under a LIR. -Hank

8 15

Minutes from RIPE 63: final
by Gert Doering 24 Apr '12

24 Apr '12

Dear AP WG, the minutes from RIPE 63 have been declared "final" and can be found online at https://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ap/minutes/minutes-from-ripe-63 thanks again to the scribes for a huge piece of work well done. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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 0

Assign before use?
by Florian Weimer 21 Apr '12

21 Apr '12

The IPv4 policy doesn't seem to say this explicitly, but my impression is that address space has to be assigned before it can be used. Is this correct?

1 0

IPv4 Maintenance Policy
by Rob Blokzijl 19 Apr '12

19 Apr '12

Dear Colleagues, on the agenda for the Adress Policy WG next week is a presentation of a document titled "IPv4 Maintenance Policy", attached to this mail. This is a document that is slightly different from or usual type of policy documents: it is an attempt to consolidate those policies and practices that will still be relevant after the depletion of the IPv4 free pool. The aim is to have a consistent and complete collection of all things relevant to IPv4 for the years to come. Read, digest, enjoy - and discuss :-) Best regards, Rob Blokzijl

9 10

Re: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01)
by John Curran 17 Apr '12

17 Apr '12

On Apr 14, 2012, at 10:39 AM, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > Global coordination of a "commons" that is done on regional and national basis. As has been noted, there already is a successfully working process for submission of global policies in the Internet number registry system In fact, I pointed that fact out specifically to Milton the other day - <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/04/06/the-coming-trade-war-in-ip-add…> Whether one first seeks regional policies, gains experiences and awareness of the issues and then seeks consensus on a global policy, or one simply goes for the global policy from the beginning is a matter of personal preference. If there are lessons in global process to be learned from other bodies, then I'd love to hear of them, but such seems independent to the consideration of draft policies already underway in the regions under existing processes. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

9 17

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by David Monosov 15 Apr '12

15 Apr '12

Dear address-policy-wg, Ms. Brown, At present, RIPE NCC keeps extensive notes of all resources and actors involved in each direct assignment and allocation. This includes, for example, detailed ticket histories and revisions of the WHOIS database. This provides RIPE NCC with visibility into systemic abuse attempts of services it offers and enables it to challenge such attempts. Wouldn't 2012-01 without a uniform framework across all RIRs that includes provisions for extensive information sharing eliminate this already weak checkpoint by essentially making each RIR see half of each story? At the extreme, it might even encourage the flow of resources from "better informed" toward "less informed" RIRs, while potentially opening new loopholes and avenues for abuse and resource hoarding - especially when it may have increasing financial rewards. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov On 04/02/2012 03:39 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > 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/2012-01/ > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 30 April 2012. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > on behalf of the Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > >

1 0

declining 2012-01
by Erik Bais 15 Apr '12

15 Apr '12

I don't agree with the current policy. Reasoning : As Gert already stated: companies will find ways around this anyway by selling parts of their companies / stocks which would have the IP’s otherwise. I already heard of a situation where an Asian based company opened a UK ltd just to become a RIPE LIR member in order to be able to apply for IP in our region. Bottom line is. People with a specific goal are cunning and more creative than what we allow or not in a specific policy. Especially if (a lot of) money is involved. However by releasing this policy, (semi)authorizing a market that would prolong IPv4 lifetime and further delay v6 deployment, would give the wrong signal to the public in my personal opinion. Any kind of transfer of unused space, should go back to the RIR and not end up with the highest bidder. The sooner people realize that v4 is soo 2000, the better for us all. Regards, Erik Bais

10 16

In favor of 2012-01
by Milton L Mueller 13 Apr '12

13 Apr '12

> this is exactly the problem. this implies that the ip space is an asset of the > seller, which it is not. it is a commons, and if it is sparse, as any one has the > same right to it, it is to be redistributed according to need, fair and equally. The IP address space is not and never has been a commons. Not for those of us who actually understand the vocabulary of resource economics and know what the term "commons" means. For IP addresses to be a "commons" they all would have to be available for use for anyone at any time; i.e., there would have to be no exclusive occupation of it. And of course that doesn't work technically, does it? IP address blocks have to be uniquely and exclusively assigned to specific users to function on the internet. Which means the address pool is not a commons - end of story. Because IP addresses are exclusively assigned, they can be governed either as common pool resources (in which a governance agency establishes rules regulating the extraction of resource units from a free pool) or as tradeable property (in which holders allocate the resources by making trades among themselves) or some combination of both. All that matters is which method is more efficient and produces more benefits for Internet users. Leave your religious beliefs behind. But after IPv4 exhaustion, common pool governance of v4 space breaks down completely and the best way to ensure efficient utilization of remaining v4 resources is to allow market-based transfers. These transfers should be made as flexible and easy as possible. There is probably no need for holding periods, although they don't seem to do a lot of harm as long as they are 1 year or less. Needs assessment is increasingly arbitrary and pointless in such an environment. I know needs-basis is another item of religious faith in some circles, but the idea that RIR staff can accurately assess "need" given inherent uncertainty about time horizons and technical development, is just wrong. Organizations should be allowed to buy as much of an asset as they think they need, and can afford, in order to advance their business interests. Let the price system sort out who really needs what. It should also be obvious that the market for these addresses should be global, not regional. Thus, I support proposed policy 2012-01, my only reservation being that the policy specifies that "Where the recipient is in another region, the conditions on the recipient as defined in the counterpart RIR's transfer policy at the time of the transfer will apply." In this blog post I raised some issues with that and hope that the authors of the policy would respond. http://www.internetgovernance.org/ Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org

11 14

In support of 2012-01, and side questions.
by Tiberiu Ungureanu 12 Apr '12

12 Apr '12

Hello. First, I want to show support for 2012-01. Second, I read the treads regarding this proposal, and I've seen some opposition, but I don't understand the arguments of the opposition, so I would like the people who oppose to clarify their positions: - What are the dangers that we face if we approve this proposal? * Resources that are available in another region will be made available to RIPE members? Isn't that a good thing? * Resources currently assigned to a RIPE member will leave RIPE influence zone, the RIPE member will potentially get some cash that *maybe* will help that member spend money to deploy IPv6? Or maybe that member will take the money and run to the first casino and waste them all (but wouldn't that in the end help the economy?) * Resources that a RIPE member "sold" to an entity outside the RIPE region, instead of returning them to RIPE could have been used by another RIPE member that now needs them and doesn't have them available. This other RIPE member is now forced to use IPv6, because there's no IPv4 left. But isn't that what we all want? It is not my intention to feed the trolls, but I find 2012-01 very reasonable, and I don't understand the opposition to it. So I allow for the unlikely situation ( ;) ) where I may be wrong. Am I? -- Tiberiu Ungureanu ro.ines

1 0