October 2013 - address-policy-wg

2013-05 Last Call for Comments (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
by mschmidt 19 Dec '13

19 Dec '13

Dear colleagues, The proposal described in 2013-05, No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers, is now in its Concluding Phase. The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs have declared that consensus for the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 28 November and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the co-Chairs of all RIPE Working Groups for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05 [1] Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 28 November 2013. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC Links: ------ [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-04

5 6

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
by Gert Doering 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

Dear Address Policy WG, On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:36:24PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > A proposed change to RIPE Documents ripe-589, "IPv6 Address > Allocation and Assignment Policy", ripe-451, "IPv6 Address > Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points" and ripe-233, > "IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers In The RIPE Region" > is now available for discussion. [..] > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 25 October 2013. The discussion phase for this proposal is now over, but after the feedback received at the RIPE meeting in Athens (and here on the list, even if in the wrong thread :) ) the chairs have deviced to take a step back, and re-state the fundamental "do we want to go there?" question (and extend the discussion phase by +4 weeks). The proposal aims to unify IPv6 PA and IPv6 PI space into one kind of address space, "IPv6 addresses". This is the goal. The idea to go there came from various people in the community, mostly for one reason - having two differently "coloured" addresses that do the same thing, routingwise, but follow different policies and have different strings attached, creates quite some confusion for the folks out there that can no longer be nicely separated into "ISPs" (->become RIPE members, use PA) and "end-users" (->use PI, if BGP-based multihoming and/or upstream independence is required). Most notably, "garage style hosting providers" seem to have issues with the requirement of the IPv6 PI policy that PI space MUST NOT be sub-assigned, which the NCC interprets most strictly (because the vast amount of "grey" between "ok" and "not ok" is hard to codify into hostmaster guidelines). OTOH, I have not heard that complaint from actual hosting providers for a while, so maybe the issue is not that big anymore. *If* we go to "there is only one type of addresses" anymore, we have two options - abandon IPv6 PI (as in "not so expensive, but independent space") completely, problem solved -> I do not think we can reasonably do that - find a way to solve the needs for both RIPE members and non-members, with maximum flexibility, with only one type of addresses, taking "real world" address distribution chains (LIR->network operator-> hosting provider->customer->hosted virtual machines, for example) and "real world" financial constraints into account. 2013-06 aims to achieve the latter, while proposing / finding specific solutions for all the small details that come up if such a radical change is implemented. I think the presentation at RIPE67 was a bit too fast for the WG - it could have spent a bit more time on the background and "do we want to go there" before overwhelming you with questions about details to be solved. For that, I apologize - I did review the presentation beforehand with the proposers, and assumed "yes, this should work out nicely"... Anyway. I think what we need to hear now from the community (*you*) is where we want to go: - do nothing, our policy for IPv6 PA and IPv6 PI "as of today" is fine - keep the distinction, work on the IPv6 PI policy (if the pain is large enough that someone actually volunteers to come with a proposal) - go the big step, unify IPv6 PA and IPv6 PI, and solve all the detail problems that need to be addressed if we go there. Going for one of the first options would mean abandoning 2013-06 - but if that's what the community wants, it's much better to do it *now* than to invest more time in text, impact analysis, a few rounds of review phase, and *then* give up the project. 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

9 10

Re: [address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
by Dmitriy Zemlyanoy 30 Oct '13

30 Oct '13

RIPE 67 is ended. Just wondering if you have any updates? > We will be addressing this as part of our "Feedback From RIPE NCC Registration Services" > presentation at RIPE 67. Based on the feedback we receive from here, we will work with > the Working Group Chairs on a way forward. > Kind regards, > Andrea Cima > RIPE NCC

6 9

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
by Gert Doering 29 Oct '13

29 Oct '13

Dear AP WG, On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 03:22:17PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2013-05, > "No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers" > has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this > proposal has also been published. [..] > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 29 October 2013. The review phase for this proposal is now over. On the list, there have been 8 voices of support, and no opposition (it was also presented at the RIPE67 meeting in Athens, and did not see opposition there either). I take this as consensus, and we'll move the proposal to Last Call now. 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

2013-06 Discussion Period extended until 26 November 2013 (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
by Marco Schmidt 28 Oct '13

28 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the proposal 2013-06, "PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space", has been extended until 26 November 2013. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-06 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

16-bit ASNs
by Tassos Chatzithomaoglou 21 Oct '13

21 Oct '13

Regarding the return of 16-bit ASNs to RIPE, do you think it would be possible to make it in an automated way? i.e. create a web page where ASN owners can declare their willingness to keep or return the ASN they own; then contact just the returners. Assuming a good percentage of owners gives an answer (whether positive or negative), then it'll be made more clear how many of these unknown-state 16-bit ASNs is actually unknown. I don't know if there is any estimation from previous communication, if there is actually any success on giving back ASNs. -- Tassos

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Gert Doering 21 Oct '13

21 Oct '13

Dear AP WG, On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 04:44:38PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Following the feedback received, the draft documents for the proposal > described in 2013-03 (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup) > are edited and published. [..] > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 October 2013. The review phase for 2013-03 ended last Friday, as announced by Marco. We have seen very strong support from the community, and some opposition. Without going into a full summary of who said what, this is one of the proposals that received most support of all that ever went into PDP, so even with the opposing voices left, we'd normally go on to declare (rough) consensus here and move to Last Call. Unfortunately, there is a bit more to this proposal than the pure textual changes to the policy text. It has been brought to the WG chairs' attention that the way the "outside world" looks at our policy processes and whether our self-regulation works or not is also influenced by the title of the policy proposal ("no need - ...") and the supporting notes, which are not signalling clearly enough that the RIPE community still wants fair distribution of addresses, as far as this can be achieved after runout, and is not going for a full open market. To avoid unneccessary troubles due to interpretation of text that is not part of the "core proposal", the proposer (Tore Anderson) has agreed to work together with Malcolm Hutty in rewriting the supporting text, and drop the "no need" string from the title. The policy text itself, that you expressed your support for, will remain unchanged(!). When that is done, the proposal will undergo another - hopefully short - impact analysis by the RIPE NCC, and come back to a new review phase here on the AP list. (I stated this as our intention at last week's APWG meeting already, but here's the formal statement from the chair on the list :-) ) 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

Election for Seat on the NRO Number Council (NRO NC)
by Axel Pawlik 17 Oct '13

17 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, Tomorrow, 18 October, an election will take place to fill one seat for the RIPE NCC service region on the Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC). The winning candidate will begin a three-year term on the NRO NC from 1 January 2014. Voting is open to anyone in attendance at the RIPE 67 Meeting in Athens and it will take place from 08:45 – 10:45 on Friday morning. There will be a voting station at the Meet and Greet desk, just outside Ballroom II + III. All attendees will be offered a voting slip and should give their completed voting slip to the election officer at the voting station. The three candidates standing for election are: - Alain Bidron - Sander Steffann - Filiz Yilmaz The candidates’ biographies are available at: http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/internet-governance/internet-tech… Candidates will also make a brief statement in support of their candidacy at the NRO/RIR Reports session, which take place on Friday from 09:00 – 10:30 (UTC +3). Kind regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
by Erik Bais 16 Oct '13

16 Oct '13

> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05 +1 on the proposal. Erik Bais A2B Internet B.V.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
by Tore Anderson 14 Oct '13

14 Oct '13

So I spent my time in the air en route to Athens today reading through 2013-06 again, and have some more comments - one significant, the rest editorial. Significant first. Section 5.3.1: says «When more than a /48 is to be sub-allocated to the same customer, the LIR or the End User (via the Sponsoring LIR) must request an approval from the RIPE NCC.» Before, NCC approval was only mandatory for assignments shorter than a /48 per *End Site*. So if I'm reading the proposed policy correct, a customer that has >1 sites would need NCC approval if he wanted a /48 for each of them. I don't think we should do that. Editorial improvements (please keep in mind though that I'm not a native English speaker so my «gut feeling» about these may well be completely wrong and should be ignored): Section 5.6.2: «These assignments have been transformed automatically by the RIPE NCC in IPv6 allocations.» - "transformed" -> "converted" - "in" -> "to" Section 5.6.2: «End Users holding an allocation lower than a /32» - "an allocation" -> "allocations" - "lower" -> "smaller" Tore

1 0