September 2017 - address-policy-wg

2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
by Marco Schmidt 08 Oct '17

08 Oct '17

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-03, "Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space", is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to reduce the IPv4 allocations made by the RIPE NCC to a /24 (currently a /22) and only to LIRs that have not received an IPv4 allocation directly from the RIPE NCC before. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-03/ As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the RIPE Working Group Chairs, decides how to proceed with the proposal. We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 20 October 2017. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

41 93

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
by Willy MANGA 26 Sep '17

26 Sep '17

Hi, Le 22/09/2017 à 08:47, address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net a écrit : > [...] > I'm working around IPv6 since 2001. Anna and Randy probably since before > that. We have deployed IPv6. It didn't enable us to completely get rid of > IPv4 within our networks. That also didn't solve any issue for 3rd party > networks -- they all still need IPv4 addresses. being a newbie here can you please explain briefly why, as of today , these people really need IPv4 addresses ? Or at least why they cannot start a transition process towards IPv6? Regards, -- Willy Manga @ongolaboy https://ongola.blogspot.com/

13 23

Agenda for APWG in Dubai (v1)
by Sander Steffann 26 Sep '17

26 Sep '17

Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Dubai in the following time slots: Tuesday, October 24, 09:00 - 10:30 Tuesday, October 24, 11:00 - 12:30 If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or if we need to change anything, please let us know. Depending on the amount of "not yet known" things that show up on the agenda, we might only need one time slot. In which case, we can all join the Connect WG for a change :-) ** NOTE FOR SPEAKERS[1] ** After Dubai had already been chosen as the location for the upcoming RIPE meeting, the authorities there (DTCM) have started to enforce some rules for conferences and speakers. All speakers (including remote speakers) will need to email the following information to meeting(a)ripe.net before 15 September 2017): - Full name, title - A colour copy of their passport - A copy of their Emirates ID (if a UAE resident) - Profile/bio for the speaker (at least 200 characters) - Mobile number - Email address This information will then be forwarded to the DTCM by the RIPE NCC. We realise that these requirements go beyond what was expected at previous meetings and that they may be a cause for concern for some people - especially the sharing of colour copies of passports. Unfortunately there is nothing we can do about this - we have to comply with local laws. If you do not wish to comply with these requirements then you will not be allowed to present on stage. You will still be able to join the discussions from the floor. [1] "Speakers" includes anyone who is presenting on stage - presenters, WG Chairs, and community members who are chairing or moderating sessions. This also includes policy proposers who are planning to present their policy. Attendees speaking at the microphones during the Q&A are explicitly not considered as speakers. Regards, Gert Doering & Sander Steffann, APWG chairs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tuesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) C. Current Policy Topics - Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO 20 min - global policy overview "what's going on?" - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) - overview over concluded proposals in the RIPE region since RIPE 74 - brief overview over new proposals (if any) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Andrea Cima 25 min (+ discussion with the group) F. Discussion of open policy proposals 30 min 2016-04 IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification Maximilian Wilhelm 2017-01 Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates Elvis Daniel Velea Y. Open Policy Hour 10 min The Open Policy Hour is a showcase for your policy ideas. If you have a policy proposal you'd like to debut, prior to formally submitting it, here is your opportunity. Z. AOB ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tuesday, 12:00-13:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back F|Y|Z. If we overrun the first slot we continue here.

3 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
by Martin Huněk 22 Sep '17

22 Sep '17

Hello, I don't think that there is anyone whom would not be able to justify /22. So I think that there should not be any need for justification. Simply because it would be one more meaningless paper, nothing more. Secondly, for me having more specific routes than /24 doesn't seems seem as the right solution for IPv4. More specific routes means more routes in table, so more resources spent on legacy protocol. As for the core of the proposal - droping maximal allocation size from /22 to /24: I don't think that keeping PA pool longer than needed is good for future of an Internet. Maybe it would be better to transfer more space in PI IX pool, drop the restrictions on that pool which prevents to use it for CGN and let the PA space run flat. Long story short, I'm aginst the 2017-03 policy as it is written right now. Best Regards, Martin Hunek Dne pátek 22. září 2017 10:09:28 CEST, Daniel Suchy napsal(a): > Hello, > /24 is de-facto standard accepted in routing tables these days and also > /24 was used in large scale during PI assignments - so I don't see any > problem in reduction of initial (minimal) IPv4 allocation. So i support > this idea. > > But I would like to keep option for asking more than /24 (up to /22 > maximum, as was decided in the past) LIRs eligible for allocation, if > LIR properly documents his request. > > From my own practice there're some LIR, where /24 is sufficient and they > just become LIRs because there's no other real option to get independent > addresses (old "PI") and with /22 we're just wasting limited resource. > But there're also LIRs, where /22 will actively used. > > I don't see any problems in terms of RFC 2050 mentioned here and memory > contraints, providers had to upgrade their routers in meantime anyway > (at least due to IPv6 adoption). Fragmentation up to /24 is long-term > reality and we had to deal with it anyway. > > With regards, > Daniel > > On 09/21/2017 01:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-03, "Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, > > aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space", is now available for > > discussion. > > > > The goal of this proposal is to reduce the IPv4 allocations made by the > > RIPE NCC to a /24 (currently a /22) and only to LIRs that have not > > received an IPv4 allocation directly from the RIPE NCC before. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-03/ > > > > As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this > > four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback > > to the proposer. > > > > At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of > > the RIPE Working Group Chairs, decides how to proceed with the proposal. > > > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 20 October 2017. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Marco Schmidt > > Policy Development Officer > > RIPE NCC > > > > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
by Aleksey Bulgakov 22 Sep '17

22 Sep '17

Hi. I think it would be better to allocate /19 or bigger. It helps to go to IPv6 and the problem of IPv4 is resolved automatically. I don't really understand why the NCC tries to prolong the life of the dead patient by means of restrictions such as 2015-01, 2017-03 and others. It seems the NCC wants to earn money due to the IPs become more expensive. So I oppose this proposal. 22 Сен 2017 г. 7:50 пользователь "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike(a)swm.pp.se> написал: On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Tim Chown wrote: At the current run-rate, do we know what is the expected expiry of the free >> pool in RIPE's hands? >> > > There’s http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/. > There is also: https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about- ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph Looks to me that there is still IPv4 space being returned, the run-rate on 185/8 is constant, we have approximately 4-5 years to go? To me it looks like things are going according to plan, and I don't see any need to change anything. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se

5 4

2017-01 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)
by Marco Schmidt 13 Sep '17

13 Sep '17

Dear colleagues, The policy proposal 2017-01, "Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates" has been withdrawn. The proposal is archived and can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/archived-policy-proposals/archive… Reason for withdrawal: The proposer didn't see enough community support, especially from Legacy Resource Holders as the parties that would be most affected. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0