October 2015 - address-policy-wg

2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
by Marco Schmidt 17 Nov '15

17 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 18 November 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

46 81

2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Nov '15

07 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, The draft document for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - AS Numbers can now be assigned for any need that cannot be satisfied with an existing AS Number - The RIPE NCC's need evaluation has been removed - A limit of 1,000 AS Numbers per organisation has been added - There is now a requirement that 16-bit AS Numbers be multihomed after nine months - The requirement that the routing policy must be new and unique has been removed - Related wording adjustments in the summary and rationale of the proposal You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 And the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 22 January 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

16 41

address-policy-wg
by Alessio Genova 31 Oct '15

31 Oct '15

Hello, we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting a /22. >From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to every our customer. There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10€ / each . I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them. Best Regards

12 15

R: address-policy-wg
by Alessio Genova 30 Oct '15

30 Oct '15

>It cannot be reiterated enough: The final /22 is a migration tool for IPv6. There is a large number of viable >solutions to use IPv6 as your main addressing scheme for a eyeball ISP, especially if you have started from >scratch only a few years ago. > >Instead of screaming for more regulation on a market that more or less works, I think that focusing on IPv6 >adoption should be the first order of business. > >Regards, > >--ck Who writes some sentence, surely knows that today IPv6 addressing in Italy is used only by Facebook, Google, Youtube and some other else, but most of sites are only reachable by IPv4. So, please, let me know how to migrate all our customers to IPv6 giving them access to the whole internet, as today, and we’ll make it. Vice versa I’m sure that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them. Da: Alessio Genova [mailto:alessiogenova1@gmail.com] Inviato: giovedì 29 ottobre 2015 14:02 A: 'address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net' Oggetto: address-policy-wg Hello, we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting a /22. >From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to every our customer. There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10€ / each . I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them. Best Regards

4 3

New on RIPE Labs: RIPE NCC Membership Statistics Q3 2015
by Mirjam Kuehne 30 Oct '15

30 Oct '15

Dear colleagues, We look at the RIPE NCC in terms of growth, geographic distribution and IPv6 deployment. We find that recent RIPE policy changes have had an impact on membership statistics and development trends. Please find the results on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ripe-ncc-membership-statistics-q3-2015 Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

2015-05
by Shahin Gharghi 29 Oct '15

29 Oct '15

Hello I support this proposal. If you are worry about running out of IPv4, you should stop those are registering new LIRs, transfer the IPs and close the LIR. Even 2015-01 is unable to stop them. If it is limited to those LIRs who didn't transfer any IP to other LIRs, I think it could reduce amount of unnecessary transfers. I heard a lot about this: "New entrants should have access to IPv4". I think you should say that in this way: " The new entrants should have access to the INTERNET". Don't you think the new LIRs need to run IPv6? or imagine we are in 2020 and we ran out of IPv4, what should we do? Do it now. I think we are just postpone switching to v6. -- Shahin Gharghi

17 47

Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria
by Pietro Asproni 29 Oct '15

29 Oct '15

Dear All,, proposal appropriate and acceptable. Also you need to put a brake to trade of the IPv4 networks Regards, Pietro Asproni PA7-RIPE

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran
by Saeed Khademi 22 Oct '15

22 Oct '15

Hello everybody, I read all messages in this regard, and I think conversation is going off the road. One individual, or one LIR may talk about their own opinion regarding the proposal. Please do not extent the talk to all LIRs from Iran or any other region. and I don't think that it is wise to stamp a technical proposal with political issues. Are we talking about IPV4 and IPV6, or we are talking about how Iran is managing it's address space? Kind Regards, Saeed. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Reid Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 5:43 PM To: Shahin Gharghi Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran On 21 Oct 2015, at 14:49, Shahin Gharghi <shahin(a)gharghi.ir> wrote: >> What's stoping Iranian LIRs getting an IPv6 allocation from the NCC? > > Iran has a lot of IPv6 allocation but can't announce any. So the probem isn't getting or using address space, it's routing that space. This WG (and RIPE more generally) is not in a position to decide or enforce the peering and transit policies used by ISPs ad IXPs. >> Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions. > > Solving the sanctions problem isn't within RIPE's control. > > RIPE NCC can ease the process.I'm not sure it can. It would be up to the RIPE community to reach consensus > on a policy proposal which somehow eases Iran's sanctions problems. I > doubt a policy could have that effect. If you have some ideas about how > this could be done, please share them or submit a policy proposal which > does that. > People mentioned Iran as instance, so I explained the situation. > Community has to agree that Iran and similar countries are a part of > community and they can see the proposals from their own view. You are > talking about making IPv4 available in future, and one of the biggest user > of IPv4 in future is Iran or similar countries, so it seems we have to > look at them. Of course Iran is part of the community. However when RIPE develops address policies here, we are supposed to consider the interests of the community as a whole and do the best (or least worst) for everyone. Current policy allows Iranian LIRs to get the same sized IPv4 allocations as everyone else. IMO they're no better off or worse off than any other LIRs in the RIPE service region who need to get v4 space from the NCC.

3 3

2015-05
by Shahin Gharghi 21 Oct '15

21 Oct '15

> > I think the answer expected was to clarify (for whomever is interested) why > Iran companies can't announce IPv6. > > You can check that in RIP NCC's statistics. Whole Iran LIRs have one upstream provider (AS12880 AS48159) and it doesn't support IPv6. Also making tunnel to some brokers is illegal and blocked and if it was open, brokers don't work with Iran because of sanctions. Again, what are you talking about sanctions ? As I mentioned Iran is the > largest importer of IPv4 space and it comes from all over the region. > People should transfer money illegally to outside of Iran because we can't use SWIFT as you know. So if we transfer money and they won't transfer the IP's, there is no where to complain. (at least RIPE NCC can help in this case to ease transfers) So if we could transfer easily the number of transfers would be much more. > I'm not sure it can. It would be up to the RIPE community to reach > consensus on a policy proposal which somehow eases Iran's sanctions > problems. I doubt a policy could have that effect. If you have some ideas > about how this could be done, please share them or submit a policy proposal > which does that. > > I'll do my best to submit a proposal. > Of course Iran is part of the community. However when RIPE develops > address policies here, we are supposed to consider the interests of the > community as a whole and do the best (or least worst) for everyone. Current > policy allows Iranian LIRs to get the same sized IPv4 allocations as > everyone else. IMO they're no better off or worse off than any other LIRs > in the RIPE service region who need to get v4 space from the NCC. > > I don't say Iranian LIRs should receive bigger parts, I mean even this /22's can help them. I apologize if some of my notes are not related to this WG. -- Shahin Gharghi

1 0

2015-05
by Shahin Gharghi 21 Oct '15

21 Oct '15

> > > > > > They need IP more than every country and they can't have even ONE IPv6. > > What's stoping Iranian LIRs getting an IPv6 allocation from the NCC? > Iran has a lot of IPv6 allocation but can't announce any. > > > Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions. > > Solving the sanctions problem isn't within RIPE's control. > RIPE NCC can ease the process. People mentioned Iran as instance, so I explained the situation. Community has to agree that Iran and similar countries are a part of community and they can see the proposals from their own view. You are talking about making IPv4 available in future, and one of the biggest user of IPv4 in future is Iran or similar countries, so it seems we have to look at them. -- Shahin Gharghi

4 3