April 2012 - address-policy-wg

2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Emilio Madaio 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2011-04 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 2 May 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by Alexander Leefmann 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

Dear working group, > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 30 April 2012. > --> a) I don't like the idea, that this proposal tries to allow smaller networks then the minimum /21 (for the last /8 then /22) allocations to be transferred into the RIPE NCC region. As some may know there is a "marketplace" for IPv4 allocations in the LIR portal right now. On this marketplace the minimum size of a allocation to transfer is /21. I would strongly recommend not to de-aggregate allocations any further. On the other way if the author of the proposal can explain why she choose a /24 as minimum transfer size I would like to hear her reasons for that and maybe why not a /25 - yes I am aware of the "common sense" of filtering. --> c) Why would someone like to change the requirements a RIPE NCC member needs to fulfill to get an allocation? In other words I would like to read something like "the recipient must be able to explain the need of this allocation and will use a minimum of 50% of it for it's own services or businesses". To be honest when reading "[...]will not be sold within 15 months[...] I get the idea of making a business out of IPv4. I am sure that the author does mean something else and I wold love to hear her explanation of this wording. In general I like the idea of transferring IPv4 allocation into RIR regions where there is a good need of this resources. BUT I don't like the idea of bringing policies in position to use the exhaustion of IPv4 as a business. And since the whole proposal with words like "sell" sounds like a business plan. RIRs give internet ressources based on needs not on price tags. If we start to official sell resources RIRs will become money driven then community driven. Again I believe that the author of the proposal wasn't thinking of money when writing this idea down and can now explain to me why I am a paranoid. Thank you all for your attention. Best regards -- Alex

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by McTim 03 Apr '12

03 Apr '12

Hi all, In general, I'm not sure what a transfer policy will accomplish that can't already be done by an EU org becoming an ARIN (for example member). Lots of orgs in the EU are already members of other RIRs. Obviously, it will enable the authors company to do more business, but I'm not sure that is a compelling reason to adopt this policy proposal. In general, I am opposed to the notion of monetising IP address blocks, a la domain names. For the moment, i think I would not be in support of this proposal. I am willing to be persuaded however. I'm not too happy with the word "sold" or the 15 months limit. If this gets support, I would rather the word "transfer" be used and the limitation on transfer be more like 36 months. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On 4/2/12, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> 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 > > >

3 7

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by Sascha Lenz 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

Hi all, > > 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 > > i'm not really convinced right now about the proposal text (i do support the general idea though). My main concern is : "1. The IPv4 addresses will be used for business purposes and will not be sold within 15 months." Why on earth should only "business purposes" be a valid reason for acquiring legacy IP space by that policy? I don't like that wording. Why aren't NCOs or similar considered here? I come from a time where there wasn't any business on the internet, and i still like to think about all those non-commercial organizations out there (someone has to?). I guess, that's just a wording problem though no one really thought about it - or is this really intentionally? Or did i just get something wrong here? => I don't support the proposal with the CURRENT wording (or someone explain it to me) -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by Nick Hilliard 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

On 02/04/2012 15:39, Marco Schmidt wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ This proposal contains the following statement: > Hence there is a significant over-supply of IPv4 in North America versus > the rest of the world. In a global economy, membership in any particular > RIR should not be a barrier to acquiring IPv4 Addresses when the source > is not within the same RIR region. I'm not going to argue about the amount of address space allocated within continental north america, but just point out that a policy of this form will apply equally for exchanging address space in+out of the afrinic region - which has the least well developed internet infrastructure, the greatest deficit of ip addresses and the longest expected exhaustion time. If it happens that the net movement of IP address is out of the afrinic area and towards the rest of the world, then the infrastructural deficit in Africa will be even more disadvantaged than it currently is. Nick

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by boggits 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

On 2 April 2012 14:39, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ 1. Document does not make it clear about what happens if an LIR changes its policy in regards to reciprocity (i.e. does the policy stop at that instant, are existing transfers completed, are any transfers reversed, etc) 2. IP addresses can't be 'sold' (if they can I'd like to buy some) surely this should be transfered. Why a 15 month window? 3. There appears to be no clear definition of what an acceptable reverse policy should be 4. The policy doesn't make clear who the end point of the transaction are, two LIRs, two endusers (one of each) I'll read it again and I'm sure there will be more questions J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

1 0

2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by Marco Schmidt 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

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