May 2015 - address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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

2015-02 New Policy Proposal (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by Marco Schmidt 14 Jun '15

14 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 13 May 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

31 31

2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Marco Schmidt 12 Jun '15

12 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 June 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

47 146

2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by Thomas01.Schmidt＠conti.de 28 May '15

28 May '15

Dear Colleagues, On Fri May 22 John Collins wrote: ----------------------------------------- Finally, I would like to call on the many "Enterprise LIRs" out there to consider this suggestion and if it makes sense to support it on the mailing-list. Also I ask the many "ISP LIRs" to lend their consideration and support. Your feedback is important. The success of IPv6 depends on both LIR categories gaining access to sufficient address space. ----------------------------------------- I represent on of these "Enterprise LIRs" and like to support this proposal. The organisational structure could request specific consideration in the IP address management design (e.g. caused by M&A, subsidaries or divisional independencies under a holding). The removed text in the new policy proposal ------------------begin--------------- If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of existing users and the extent of the organisation's infrastructure. -----------------end------------------ gives the freedom to allocated an address design independ by the number of existing users. We currently face the existing limitation by become LIR at ARIN and APNIC too. The additional address allocations helps us to cover the global parts of the company with sufficient address space but with additional expenses and costs. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards / Meilleures salutations Thomas Schmidt IT Corporate Infrastructure Strategy, Network IT CO IN ST N Continental AG Vahrenwalder Str. 9, D-30165 Hannover, GERMANY Phone: 0049 511 938-1269 Telefax: 0049 511 938-81269 Email: Thomas01.Schmidt(a)conti.de http://www.conti.com http://www.continental-corporation.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Continental Aktiengesellschaft, Postfach/Postbox 1 69, D-30001 Hannover Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats/Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ing. Wolfgang Reitzle Vorstand/Executive Board: Dr. Elmar Degenhart (Vorsitzender/Chairman), Jose A. Avila, Dr. Ralf Cramer, Frank Jourdan, Helmut Matschi, Dr. Ariane Reinhart, Wolfgang Schaefer, Nikolai Setzer, Hans-Juergen Duensing Sitz der Gesellschaft/Registered Office: Hannover Registergericht/Registered Court: Amtsgericht Hannover, HRB 3527, USt.-ID-Nr./VAT-ID-No. DE 115645799 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Proprietary and confidential. Distribution only by express authority of Continental AG or its subsidiaries.

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by John.Collins＠BIT.admin.ch 28 May '15

28 May '15

Dear Colleagues, On Tue Apr 28 Marco Schmidt wrote: ------------------------------------------------- > > A proposed change to the RIPE Document "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" now is open for discussion. > > The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial IPv6 allocations larger than a /29. The RIPE NCC would consider additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and extent of the organisation's infrastructure. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 > I supported this proposal is a previous post and I still do. However as Marco said in his original message above "additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and extent of the organisation's infrastructure" would be considered by the RIPE-NCC. I want to make a suggestion for such "additional aspects". It might make sense that some inclusive evaluation criteria are listed in the policy. This would make the evaluation task of the RIPE-NCC easier and would also simplify allocation requests from LIRs. I suggest that the following text replaces the existing text in the policy in section 5.1.2 (Initial allocation size) -------------------- begin ------------------------------------------ "Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary. Organisations may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 by submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of allocation." -------------------- end -------------------------------------------- Here are some remarks concerning the "additional aspects" (inclusive/positive criteria in the suggested text): number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is like the status quo. It allows the RIPE-NCC to consider the number of existing and future (note the removal of the word "existing" in the suggested policy text) users and the organisation's infrastructure when evaluating address plans. It seems logical that these criteria are included in the evaluation of requests as there is a relationship between the number users and infrastructure and the needed addresses. The more users and the bigger the infrastructure, the more address are needed. hierarchical and geographic structuring ---------------------------------------------------- Allows the RIPE-NCC to consider requirements of (national or multi-national) commercial organisations, governments and military organisations like the UK-MOD concerning the reflection of hierarchy and geographical coverage in the address plan. Even autonomous (sub)organisations are catered for by the 'hierarchy' aspects. the segmentation of infrastructure for security ------------------------------------------------------------ Allows the RIPE-NCC to consider address plans which cater for the separation of infrastructures for security reasons which might include data protection, network and system protection and business continuity assurance for disaster recovery. planned longevity of allocation ---------------------------------------- Allows the RIPE-NCC to take future planning of organisations into account when they reserve enough address space for many years in an effort to avoid renumbering and (at the end of the day) to avoid undue de-aggregation. I do not propose that a specific number of years is mentioned as the interpretation of longevity for one organisation will differ from that of another organisation. As RIPE-NCC's Andrea Cima pointed out at RIPE70, some LIRs plan in terms of 20 years, others in terms of 10 years etc. Finally, I would like to call on the many "Enterprise LIRs" out there to consider this suggestion and if it makes sense to support it on the mailing-list. Also I ask the many "ISP LIRs" to lend their consideration and support. Your feedback is important. The success of IPv6 depends on both LIR categories gaining access to sufficient address space. And thank you very much for reading this far! Best Regards, John

6 6

WG: Re: 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by alexander.brinkmann＠kaufland.com 26 May '15

26 May '15

Hi all, I support this proposal, too, Thanks John Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Alexander Brinkmann Tel.: +49 7132 949665 Fax: +49 7132 9479665 EMail: alexander.brinkmann(a)kaufland.com KI 967850 IT International / IT Governance / Netzwerk Design und IT-Sicherheit Office: Haller Straße 60 74189 Weinsberg http://www.kaufland.de http://www.spannende-it.de Kaufland Informationssysteme GmbH & Co. KG Postfach 12 53 - 74149 Neckarsulm Kommanditgesellschaft Sitz: Neckarsulm Registergericht: Stuttgart HRA 104163 ----- Weitergeleitet von Alexander Brinkmann/IS/KI/KAUFLAND am 26.05.2015 11:36 ----- Von: Carlos Gómez Muñoz <carlosf.gomez(a)seap.minhap.es> An: John.Collins(a)BIT.admin.ch, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Kopie: mschmidt(a)ripe.net Datum: 26.05.2015 11:03 Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) Gesendet von: "address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> I support the proposal with the addition suggested by John. Best regards, Carlos Gómez es.seap Spanish government LIR El 22/05/2015 a las 11:45, John.Collins(a)BIT.admin.ch escribió: > Dear Colleagues, > > On Tue Apr 28 Marco Schmidt wrote: > ------------------------------------------------- > >> A proposed change to the RIPE Document "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" now is open for discussion. >> >> The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial IPv6 allocations larger than a /29. The RIPE NCC would consider additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and extent of the organisation's infrastructure. >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 >> > > I supported this proposal is a previous post and I still do. However as Marco said in his original message above "additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and extent of the organisation's infrastructure" would be considered by the RIPE-NCC. I want to make a suggestion for such "additional aspects". It might make sense that some inclusive evaluation criteria are listed in the policy. This would make the evaluation task of the RIPE-NCC easier and would also simplify allocation requests from LIRs. > > I suggest that the following text replaces the existing text in the policy in section 5.1.2 (Initial allocation size) > > -------------------- begin ------------------------------------------ > "Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary. > > Organisations may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 by submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of allocation." > -------------------- end -------------------------------------------- > > > Here are some remarks concerning the "additional aspects" (inclusive/positive criteria in the suggested text): > > number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This is like the status quo. It allows the RIPE-NCC to consider the number of existing and future (note the removal of the word "existing" in the suggested policy text) users and the organisation's infrastructure when evaluating address plans. It seems logical that these criteria are included in the evaluation of requests as there is a relationship between the number users and infrastructure and the needed addresses. The more users and the bigger the infrastructure, the more address are needed. > > hierarchical and geographic structuring > ---------------------------------------------------- > Allows the RIPE-NCC to consider requirements of (national or multi-national) commercial organisations, governments and military organisations like the UK-MOD concerning the reflection of hierarchy and geographical coverage in the address plan. Even autonomous (sub)organisations are catered for by the 'hierarchy' aspects. > > the segmentation of infrastructure for security > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Allows the RIPE-NCC to consider address plans which cater for the separation of infrastructures for security reasons which might include data protection, network and system protection and business continuity assurance for disaster recovery. > > planned longevity of allocation > ---------------------------------------- > Allows the RIPE-NCC to take future planning of organisations into account when they reserve enough address space for many years in an effort to avoid renumbering and (at the end of the day) to avoid undue de-aggregation. I do not propose that a specific number of years is mentioned as the interpretation of longevity for one organisation will differ from that of another organisation. As RIPE-NCC's Andrea Cima pointed out at RIPE70, some LIRs plan in terms of 20 years, others in terms of 10 years etc. > > > Finally, I would like to call on the many "Enterprise LIRs" out there to consider this suggestion and if it makes sense to support it on the mailing-list. Also I ask the many "ISP LIRs" to lend their consideration and support. Your feedback is important. The success of IPv6 depends on both LIR categories gaining access to sufficient address space. > > And thank you very much for reading this far! > > Best Regards, > John > > >

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Transfers in the RIPE NCC Service Region
by Mirjam Kuehne 21 May '15

21 May '15

Dear colleagues, Now that the RIPE NCC has reached its last /8, some Local Internet Registries (LIRs) are choosing to obtain additional address space from other organisations via the emerging transfer market. In this new article on RIPE Labs we examine statistics from the last two and a half years of transfers and visualise per country aggregates on a map: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ipv4-transfers-in-the-ripe-ncc-servic… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

10 9

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Review Period extended until 19 May 2015 (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by David Huberman 20 May '15

20 May '15

Some data from the ARIN region, courtesy of Richard Jimmerson of ARIN: For the last several years ARIN has been registering AS numbers by issuing the lowest AS number we have in inventory to approved organizations. We ask those organizations if they would be willing to accept an AS number higher in the number range, and outside of the range that previously made up the 2-byte only AS number space. In 2014 we found that nearly 27% of the organizations approved for an AS number elected to receive a 4-byte AS number rather than take the lowest AS number in our inventory. Several organizations unwilling to receive a 4-byte AS number have indicated to ARIN that their transit providers strongly state a preference that their customers use AS numbers from the traditional 2-byte AS number range. More recently, because of a lack of 2-byte AS numbers in the ARIN inventory, the AS number assignments we make are 4-byte AS numbers and outside of the range that previously made up the 2-byte only AS number space. For those organizations who come back to ARIN specifically stating a preference for a 2-byte AS number, we may be able to continue satisfying their requests using AS numbers that have recently been added to the ARIN AS number inventory through returns or revocations. Very recently ARIN received a new assignment of AS numbers from the IANA. Roughly 90 of those were from the 2-byte range. In 2014 there were 12 organizations that elected to receive a 4-byte AS number and later came back to ARIN to exchange it for a 2-byte AS number. Each of these organizations stated issues with their transit providers either unwilling or unable to accept the use of a 4-byte AS number by a customer. 2014 total AS numbers issued: 1,579 2014 4-byte AS numbers issued: 416 2014 2-byte AS numbers issued: 1,163 David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation

4 4

2014-03 Review Period extended until 19 May 2015 (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Marco Schmidt 20 May '15

20 May '15

Dear colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has been extended until 19 May 2015. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

10 15

<off-topic> RE: 2014-03 Review Period extended until 19 May 2015 (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Erik Bais 17 May '15

17 May '15

Hi Randy, > i really missed being there > we can blame serge, who shifted the meeting left one week from it's > traditional time, and thus conflicted with our tenth wedding anniversary :) You can't blame Serge for your poor planning in a wedding date ... You knew 10 years ago that there is a RIPE meeting in may ;) Congratz btw ;-) Erik

2 1