September 2012 - address-policy-wg

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by LeaderTelecom B.V. 03 Oct '12

03 Oct '12

Dear Community, Our case: we don't have PA-allocated space. but we have many clients who need IPs. We found ISP who won't make transfer, while this is not very simple procedure, but ready to make sub-allocation. Current policy allows to do suballocations, but maximum size is /20 every twelve months for one ISP. This is too small count. I suggest: remove restrictions for size of network and period (possibility to suballocate without any restractions instead of twelve months ). Pros: 1. No any work for RIPE (transfers requered additional work from RIPE side) 2. Simple and fast. Just register sub-allocation in RIPE Database. 3. Allow effective and fast use IPv4 space. I think in nearest time question of using IP-addresees from other ISP will be very popular and the more simple to use IPv4 addresses from other LIRs is better for community. This idea was presented on Address Policy Working Group, Thursday 27 Sep, RIPE 65, Amsterdam. -- Alexey Ivanov Owner & General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd. Owner & Managing Director LeaderTelecom B.V.

2 3

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-06 New Policy Proposal (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion)
by Wilfried Woeber 27 Sep '12

27 Sep '12

Before formally submitting my statement of support, I'd like to ask for clarification on the proposed text for 6.3, specifically: " ...this should be at least 50% of the space unless special circumstances are defined. " Which party would "define" such "special cicumstances" and which party would review/grant/deny? Thanks, Wilfried

2 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-06 New Policy Proposal (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion)
by Anfinsen, Ragnar 27 Sep '12

27 Sep '12

This proposal makes a lot of sense and I support it. /Ragnar On 03.09.12 15:50, "Emilio Madaio" <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > >Dear Colleagues > >A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553, "IPv4 Address Allocation >and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now >available for discussion. > > >You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 > >We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to ><address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 1 October 2012. > >Regards > >Emilio Madaio >Policy Development Officer >RIPE NCC > >

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 Discussion Period extended until 22 October 2012 (Intra-RIR transfer policy)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

Tore Anderson stated I am really struggling with this sentence: ?Other than for an additional allocation, for the purpose of determining need, a period of 24 months is used in evaluating a transferred allocation.? The intent is that 24 months should be the the period for all allocations. I will change the wording to: A period of 24 months is used in evaluating a transferred allocation. Tore also stated: Another thing I am wondering about, is the new 24 month period. Prior to ?Run Out Fairly?, the period was 12 months. This was determined by 2006-06, which intended to harmonise the need period across the five regions. With that in mind, I would like to see why 24 months was chosen. Is 2006-06's rationale no longer valid? What are the need periods currently used for allocation transfers in the other regions? The need period in the ARIN region is 24 months and the need period in the APNIC region is 12 months. Thanks, Sandra Brown IPv4 Market Group sandrabrown(a)ipv4marketgroup.com

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 Discussion Period extended until 22 October 2012 (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

Thank you for your comments Tore. --------------------------------------------------------------- I support this proposal, but wonder why it specifically refers to LIRs rather than something generic like ?organisations?? That excludes transfers of direct assignments to/from End Users [who are not also LIRs]. In other places, the text refers to ?any IPv4 address space?, which seems to indicate that direct assignments are in scope, too. --------------------------------------------------------------- I am quite willing to change the wording from LIR's to Organizations if all agree. Then all five transfer examples defined by Tore would be allowed. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, an editorial/language feedback: ?Apart from transfers of address space within the service region of the RIPE NCC, this policy defines the framework that outlines what specific rules apply to IPv4 address space transfers in between the different RIR regions.? --------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Tore's editorial change. This sentence will now read: This policy defines the framework that outlines specific rules which apply to IPv4 address space transfer between the RIR regions. Thank you. Sandra Brown IPv4 Market Group sandrabrown(a)ipv4marketgroup.com

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 Discussion Period extended until 22 October 2012 (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Tore Anderson 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

* Emilio Madaio > The Discussion Period for the proposal 2012-02,"Policy for Inter-RIR > Transfers of IPv4 Address Space", has been extended until 22 October > 2012. I support this proposal, but wonder why it specifically refers to LIRs rather than something generic like «organisations»? That excludes transfers of direct assignments to/from End Users [who are not also LIRs]. In other places, the text refers to «any IPv4 address space», which seems to indicate that direct assignments are in scope, too. While it is the case that the RIPE region currently does not have a transfer policy for assignments, that may change in the future. I don't know about other regions (but obviously policies may change here too). Some hypothetical examples (I am assuming we are not running into any restrictions found in the remote region's transfer policy): 1) A RIPE region LIR wants to transfer and unused IPv4 allocation to an out-of-region End User (who is not a LIR), which will register the prefix in the Destination RIR's database as a direct assignment. 2) Same as #1, but the End User happens to also be a LIR. 3) An out-of-region End User (who is not a LIR), has a unused IPv4 direct assignment he wishes to transfer to a RIPE region LIR, who intend to register the prefix in the RIPE database as ALLOCATED PA. 4) Same as #3, only that the End User happens to also be a LIR. As I understand the proposed policy, #1 and #3 would not be allowed, but #2 and #4 would. Is my understanding correct? Also, assuming that a transfer policy has since been established in the RIPE region covering transfers of direct assignments: 5) Out-of-region End User wants to transfer a direct assignment to a RIPE region End User. Neither are LIRs. This would not be permitted by this policy either, correct? Finally, an editorial/language feedback: «Apart from transfers of address space within the service region of the RIPE NCC, this policy defines the framework that outlines what specific rules apply to IPv4 address space transfers in between the different RIR regions.» Native speakers please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been taught that if you say «Apart from This, That» in English, the logical interpretation of that statement is "This AND That" (with an emphasis on "That"). It is however fairly clear from reading the rest of the proposal that the intended logical meaning in this case is "not(This) AND That". I don't think it particularly good form to start a policy with a statement of what it *isn't*, so I would suggest simply deleting the entire «Apart from transfers of address space within the service region of the RIPE NCC,» text. It is redundant in any case, as section 1.1 clearly declares in-region transfers as being out of scope. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 Discussion Period extended until 22 October 2012 (Intra-RIR transfer policy)
by Tore Anderson 24 Sep '12

24 Sep '12

* Emilio Madaio > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments > to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 22 October 2012. I am really struggling with this sentence: «Other than for an additional allocation, for the purpose of determining need, a period of 24 months is used in evaluating a transferred allocation.» The interpretation I eventually ended up with, is that it means that the new 24 month period only comes into effect for initial allocations, i.e., only for transfers where the recipient LIR holds no IPv4 PA allocations. For transfers where the recipient LIR has an additional allocation, the effective need period will still be three months. Is that correct? In any case, I think it would be good this sentence could be rewritten so it is easier to understand. Another thing I am wondering about, is the new 24 month period. Prior to «Run Out Fairly», the period was 12 months. This was determined by 2006-06, which intended to harmonise the need period across the five regions. With that in mind, I would like to see why 24 months was chosen. Is 2006-06's rationale no longer valid? What are the need periods currently used for allocation transfers in the other regions? Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

1 0

2012-03 Discussion Period extended until 22 October 2012 (Intra-RIR transfer policy)
by Emilio Madaio 24 Sep '12

24 Sep '12

Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2012-03, "Intra-RIR transfer policy" has been revised. We have published the new version (version 2.0) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal until 22 October 2012. Highlights of the changes: -additional wording on the second paragraph of section 5.5 You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 22 October 2012. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2012-02 Discussion Period extended until 22 October 2012 (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Emilio Madaio 24 Sep '12

24 Sep '12

Dear Colleagues, The Discussion Period for the proposal 2012-02,"Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space", has been extended until 22 October 2012. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Temporary Internet Assignments policy
by Nick Hilliard 19 Sep '12

19 Sep '12

There's a thread on nanog-l at the moment about temporary internet assignments: > http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2012-September/051655.html I had already booked a slot in the AP-WG under AOB to talk about this because the policy is broken and needs fixing. Specifically, the timescales specified in the policy allow the assignment to be made one week before use: the consistent feedback is that this isn't enough time for large conference organisers to get things organised in time. The problems we're trying to address are: - enough time for debogonisation - enough time for pre-configuring equipment prior to shipment (which can be weeks in advance) - not knowing well in advance what address ranges you're going to get causes massive headaches, which is exactly what you don't need coming up to a frenzied configuration - conference attendees often arrive several days earlier than the conference formally starts, and they expect teh interwebs to work There are a couple of options for dealing with this: 1. specify new time limits (e.g. receive one month in advance, hand back one week after) 2. don't specify time limits but allow the IPRAs to have discretion on what seems sensible to them 3. keep the current time limits but ask the RIPE NCC whether it would be possible to implement a booking system. I.e. your assignment would only be active during the requested time period, but you would know well in advance what the options were. If anyone has opinions on which of these they prefer (or any other suggestions on how to deal with the issue), can you either post here or let me know off-list and I'll summarise at RIPE65 in advance of posting a policy amendment for ripe-526 shortly after the meeting? Nick

10 12