address-policy-wg

Download

address-policy-wg@ripe.net

May 2022

6 participants
2 discussions

IPv6 Policy Musings...
by Gert Doering 22 May '22

22 May '22

Dear Working Group, I announced too many weeks ago that a small group was looking into the IPv6 policy, as it is today, why it is what it is, and whether the underlying assumptions that the policy is based on are still valid. After taking way too long (apologies - lots of good excuses, but this really shouldn't have dragged so long), I present you document with a very personal view on the IPv6 address policy, coming from me, Kurt Kayser and Sander Steffan (.txt and .pdf). This is not a task force document, this is not a formal WG document, and this is not an official RIPE document (though it might make a labs article). It is intended as a personal look at 24-odd years of IPv6 policy... and to spur discussion and further work on some areas that feel "in the rough". We'll present about this next week, picking some points as starting points for "shall we do something here? if yes, what? and who?" - but this is not about *me*, but about the commounity - *you*. Anyone is free and welcome to start a discussion and work on aspects we brought up - or on other aspects. Gert Doering -- long-time IPv6 policy geek -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

2 1

IPv4 PA assignments policy change draft proposal
by Jeroen Lauwers 17 May '22

17 May '22

Dear community, My name is Jeroen and I am new to the community. Ripe 84 is gonna be for me the first in-person Ripe meeting. I thought it would be nice as a newcomer to contribute something to the Ripe Community. In consultation with some of the chairs, we decided I could try to pick up the recommendation from the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force. Last November the DBTF recommended changing the address policy for IPv4 PA assignments (for own usage) from mandatory to recommended. Before I would send it as an official proposal to the RIPE NCC I would like to share it with the community to see what they think about it. I also would give a short presentation about it on RIPE 84 Where there would be space for discussion and feedback. You can find the draft version down in this mail. Feel free to reach me. Kind regards, Jeroen Lauwers #### Policy Draft Proposal #### Remove mandatory IPv4 PA Self assignment registration in the RIPE Database. Number: Author: Jeroen Lauwers jlauwers(a)a2b-internet.com<mailto:jlauwers@a2b-internet.com> A2B Internet Proposal Version: Submission Date: Suggested RIPE WG: Address Policy Proposal Type: Modification Policy Term: Indefinite Summary of Proposal In its final report, the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force (DBTF) recommended dropping IPv4 PA assignment(s) as a policy requirement [ 1 ]. This recommendation was motivated by the fact that existing LIRs are no longer eligible to request additional IPv4 prefixes from the RIPE NCC. This partially obsoletes the requirement for LIRs to document the assignment of used/reserved prefixes in the RIPE Database. This proposal aims to change the policy on assigned IPv4 PA space from “must" to "may", which will address the issue of unnecessary registration and verification of certain prefixes for LIRs and the RIPE NCC. However, it would still be possible (and recommended) for LIRs to register PA assignments. [1] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-767#612 Policy 1.0 Introduction In the past, LIRs could request a new IPv4 prefix when their current pool was sufficiently used. However, since the RIPE NCC started to run out of IPv4, LIRs with existing IPv4 prefixes have not been eligible to receive additional IPv4 prefixes from the RIPE NCC. This resulted in unnecessary efforts by LIRs to register IPv4 prefixes and by the RIPE NCC to ensure that LIRs complied with the policy. This has also led to inconsistencies in the RIPE Database, as some resource holders registered more information than necessary, while many others did not make any PA assignments. The DBTF reported that in May 2021, there were 16,232 PA allocations without any child PA assignments and 9,986 LIRs held PA allocations containing no PA assignments. The current policy states that you must register a PA assignment for each prefix that an LIR uses. If this specific policy were changed from “must” to “may” for IPv4 PA assignments, the RIPE NCC would not need to spend resources on enforcing compliance with LIRs that have not followed this policy. This policy change would also serve the goal to keep the database limited to what is needed. However, it would still be recommended and possible to register IPv4 PA assignments in the RIPE Database. Also, LIRs would still be obligated to make assignments in the database when they want to sub-allocate or partition part of their IPv4 resources to another entity (sub-allocated PA/assignments). 2.0 Policy Text Current policy text [ 2 ] 4.0 Registration Requirements All assignments and allocations must be registered in the RIPE Database. This is necessary to ensure uniqueness and to support network operations. Only allocations and assignments registered in the RIPE Database are considered valid. Registration of objects in the database is the final step in making an allocation or assignment. Registration data (range, contact information, status, etc.) must be correct at all times (i.e. they have to be maintained). New Policy Text 4.0 Registration Requirements Allocations and assignments to third parties must be registered in the RIPE Database to be considered valid. For IPv4 PA assignments used for the LIR's own network infrastructure, registration is recommended but not mandatory. This is necessary to ensure uniqueness and to support network operations. Registration of objects in the database is the final step in making an allocation or assignment. Registration data (range, contact information, status, etc.) which filled in the database, must be correct at all times. [ 2 ] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733#4 3.0 What about legacy space? As the RIPE NCC does not audit RIPE NCC members on their legacy space or how they use it, this policy change does not have an impact on legacy space or legacy space holders. 4.0 Attribution This document was developed by the RIPE community, and more specifically by Jeroen Lauwers, based on the findings of the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force. Rationale a. Arguments supporting the proposal • One of the main reasons for registering IPv4 PA assignments was that LIRs could show their use of IPv4 and thus justify an additional IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC. However, this requirement has become obsolete since the IPv4 run-out. • The application of IPv4 assignment registration policies in the RIPE Database is inconsistent. Some resource holders flood the database with tiny assignments (e.g. assignments for individual IP addresses), while many others do not register any assignments. • Resource holders of a /24 allocation are required to create at least two assignments (/25 or smaller). • This is in line with the data consistency and data minimization principles (as defined in the DBTF report): – Data stored in the RIPE Database should be adequate, relevant, and limited to only what is necessary. – It is recommended that resource registration requirements are applied consistently. • More flexibility b. Arguments opposing the proposal • An exception to the main rule does not make the overall policy more understandable. • It is questionable whether other arguments for public tracking of the use of designated prefixes are weak enough to move from “must” to “may”.

5 9