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

Change of Minumum IPv4 Allocation Size
by Filiz Yilmaz 23 Dec '03

23 Dec '03

Dear Colleagues, The final date for comments on the "Last Call" on the proposal to change the minimum IPv4 allocation size to /21 ended on 22 December 2003. There were no comments made therefore we will implement this policy change on 1 January 2004. Please note that there will be two changes. Firstly, the minimum IPv4 allocation size is /21. Secondly, it is no longer required to demonstrate efficient utilisation of a /22. Our supporting documentation and software will be updated as soon as possible. Please note that /21 allocations will only come from the 83.0.0.0/8 and 84.0.0.0/8 blocks. A full listing of the "Smallest RIPE NCC Allocation / Assignment Sizes" can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Snr. Hostmaster RIPE NCC

1 0

FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA allocation size
by Gert Doering 23 Dec '03

23 Dec '03

Hi, this was discussed on the list before the last RIPE meeting, and we had it on the address policy working group meeting (presented by me). I think we mostly have consensus on this issue, but I want to present it as a formal proposal, before it's incorporated into the policy. PROPOSAL: * the minimum initial allocation size (for new LIRs) is reduced from a /20, as of today, to a /21. (If a new LIR can demonstrate need for a bigger initial allocation, they can get a larger address block. This will not be changed). * the requirement to show an immediate need for 25% of the allocated address space is removed for the "minimum initial allocation" The motivation for that is that under the current policy, startup LIRs that do not already hold address space cannot get an initial PA allocation (which would be a /20 as of today, or bigger), because in many cases, they cannot demonstrate immediate need, or prior utilization of sufficient address space. To work around this, many startup LIRs use PI address space as a start, and when they have filled enough of this, apply for their own PA again. The problem with this is that in the end, it's very likely that more than one route will end up in the global BGP table (where one PA route would be sufficient), and also it encourages lying to the RIRs (PI space must not be distributed to third parties, i.e., LIR customers). The drawback of the changes are that it's potentially wasting address space for "very small LIRs" (that would be happy with a /23 PI space and will now get a "huge" /21). The wastage would only happen for very small LIRs that will never grow to fill the initial /21. A rough calculation shows that "1000 new LIR /21 allocations" would need a /11, which is not an unbearable strain on the conservation side, judging from the total number of LIRs in RIPE land today. A second drawback of this is that people may need to adapt their BGP filters to permit /21s from the network block(s) where these allocations are made from. So the RIPE NCC needs to document this accordingly, and ideally, well in advance. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57785 (56883) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

4 6

IANA Policies for Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to RIRs
by Axel Pawlik 15 Dec '03

15 Dec '03

Dear Colleagues, The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have been working together with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) on a policy for the allocation of IPv4 address space to the RIRs. The proposed policy was presented to the RIPE Address Policy Working Group at RIPE 46 in September. The presentation can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-ap-iana-rir/ Following discussion in all four RIR regions, this policy proposal and discussion results will be forwarded to the ICANN ASO Address Council for review and submission to the ICANN Board. It is considered a global policy proposal. Please review the document "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policies for Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries". The document can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/iana-rir-allocation-policies.html Comments on this proposal should be sent to this list. The review period is six weeks and will end on 16 November. A webcast recording of the entire RIPE Address Policy Working Group session can be found at: mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe46/ap-1a.wmv mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe46/ap-2a.wmv Kind regards, Axel

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: selling ip:s? (kf)
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 05 Dec '03

05 Dec '03

>IP addresses are clearly quite valuable, especially PI ones, not to mention >the "allocated unspecified" ones, for obvious reasons. However, the community >should definately do everything in it's power to make sure IP addresses are >not, under any circumstances, sold. We should also note that any value which may be attached to IPv4 addresses today will likely be significantly diluted as IPv6 is more widely deployed. Anyone who thinks that they will gain some advantage by paying for IPv4 addresses will be greatly disappointed when that advantage evaporates because of IPv6. Scarcity often increases the value of something so we should be quite clear that IPv6 addresses will be so abundant that any intrinsic scarcity value in IP addresses will disappear. I think that this point is important enough to be incorporated in a document regarding IPv4 addresses as a warning. There are already commercial IPv6 services available in Europe as well as several production networks used internally by research and development consortia. There is no doubt that IPv6 has matured and that the growth in the deployment of IPv6 will continue. All of this tends to reduce the pressure on the IPv4 address space and therefore reduces any intrinsic value of an IPv4 address. --Michael Dillon

2 1

RE: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: selling ip:s? (kf)
by Mike Norris 05 Dec '03

05 Dec '03

> why are we not allowed to sell ip address? i dont understand...please explain...thank you Quote from ripe-152: "By themselves, these resources have no intrinsic value; their worth is only realised in conjunction with the provision of Internet access. Thus, while registries may charge for their administrative and technical services, they may not charge for name space or address space as such; no unit cost or price tag can be attached to a domain name or to an IP address, public or private. " See http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-152.html <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-152.html> for the full document. Regards. Mike Norris

5 4

Fwd: selling ip:s? (kf)
by MEUZAK6＠aol.com 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

why are we not allowed to sell ip address? i dont understand...please explain...thank you

1 0

Final Reminder - RIPE NCC Dubai Meeting, Dec. 2003
by Membership Liason Officer 24 Nov '03

24 Nov '03

[Apologies for duplicate mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Middle East, will be held 7 - 9 December 2003 at the Taj Palace Hotel, Dubai, U.A.E. The meeting will focus on Internet resource management issues. Attendance to the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting is free of charge. However, attendees are responsible for covering their own travel and accommodation costs. AGENDA The agenda has been recently updated with more information about speakers and presentations. For the full agenda, please see: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/regional-meetings/dubai-2003/plan.html REGISTRATION To register for the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Middle East, please see: http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/dubai-reg HOTEL RESERVATIONS: The RIPE NCC has arranged for a block of rooms to be held for meeting attendees at the Metropolitan Palace Hotel and the Metropolitan Hotel Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai. There are a limited number of rooms available. Please note that rooms will be held only until 25 November 2003. After this date we cannot guarantee room availability. To reserve a room directly with the hotel, please use the reservation forms at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/regional-meetings/dubai-2003/hotel-information.… Any further questions about the RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, Middle East, can be sent directly to: <contact(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Sabrina Wilmot Membership Liaison Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

New IPv4 blocks allocated to RIPE NCC
by leo vegoda 18 Nov '03

18 Nov '03

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address ranges 83.0.0.0/8 and 84.0.0.0/8 from the IANA in November 2003. We will begin allocating from these ranges in the near future. On 24 October 2003 there was a formal proposal to the RIPE Address Policy Working Group to lower the minimum allocation size from /20 to /21. For the text of this proposal please see: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/msg00189.html> It is likely that there will be formal consensus on this proposal in the near future. Consequently, the minimum allocation size for these blocks has been set at /21. Nonetheless, the RIPE NCC will not make /21 allocations from these blocks until after there is formal consensus to do so. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our web site at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html> Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA all ocation size
by Titley, Nigel 17 Nov '03

17 Nov '03

Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > this was discussed on the list before the last RIPE meeting, and we > had it on the address policy working group meeting (presented by me). > > I think we mostly have consensus on this issue, but I want to present > it as a formal proposal, before it's incorporated into the policy. I am strongly in favour of this, it helps to solve the bootstrapping problem that many small LIRs suffer from, and which many have to lie about to get around. > > PROPOSAL: > > * the minimum initial allocation size (for new LIRs) is reduced from > a /20, as of today, to a /21. > (If a new LIR can demonstrate need for a bigger initial > allocation, they can get a larger address block. This will not > be changed). > > * the requirement to show an immediate need for 25% of the allocated > address space is removed for the "minimum initial allocation" > > > The motivation for that is that under the current policy, startup LIRs > that do not already hold address space cannot get an initial > PA allocation > (which would be a /20 as of today, or bigger), because in > many cases, they > cannot demonstrate immediate need, or prior utilization of sufficient > address space. > > To work around this, many startup LIRs use PI address space > as a start, > and when they have filled enough of this, apply for their own > PA again. > The problem with this is that in the end, it's very likely that more > than one route will end up in the global BGP table (where one PA route > would be sufficient), and also it encourages lying to the > RIRs (PI space > must not be distributed to third parties, i.e., LIR customers). > > > The drawback of the changes are that it's potentially wasting address > space for "very small LIRs" (that would be happy with a /23 PI space > and will now get a "huge" /21). The wastage would only happen for > very small LIRs that will never grow to fill the initial /21. > A rough calculation shows that "1000 new LIR /21 allocations" would > need a /11, which is not an unbearable strain on the conservation > side, judging from the total number of LIRs in RIPE land today. > > A second drawback of this is that people may need to adapt their BGP > filters to permit /21s from the network block(s) where these > allocations are made from. So the RIPE NCC needs to document this > accordingly, and ideally, well in advance. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster ********************************************************************** This e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and contains information which is or may be confidential, non-public or legally privileged. Any dissemination or distribution of this message other than to its intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us by email to postmaster(a)flagtelecom.com immediately and delete the original message and all copies from all locations in your computer systems. This e-mail has been swept by Mailsweeper TM for viruses. However, FLAG Telecom cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses. **********************************************************************

2 1

ETNO Common Position on IANA policies for allocation of IPV4 blocks
by Debecker Leo 10 Nov '03

10 Nov '03

RIPE Address Policy WG Concerns: Your document describing the policies governing the allocation of IPv4 address space from IANA to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) (call for comments, deadline 16 November 2003). Dear colleagues, Please find below the ETNO Common Position on the aforementioned consultation document. This ETNO Common Positions has been approved by all the members of the ETNO Naming, Addressing and Numbering Working Group and then received a unanimous positive vote from all 39 member companies in ETNO. The paper will equally be published, as of tomorrow, on our web site at: www.etno.be Best regards, Leo Debecker Executive Manager, Operations ETNO Brussels. November 2003 ETNO Common Position on "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policies for Allocation of IPV4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries" Executive Summary ETNO supports the proposed global policy and finds it is much more precise than the existing one. In particular, the concept will allow Regional Internet Registries more flexibility in the management of their allocated space. The European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association (1) (ETNO) has carefully reviewed the proposed global policy defining the address allocation of IPV4 Blocks from IANA to the Regional Internet Registries (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/iana-rir-allocation-policies.h tml). This policy has the merit of being much more precise, documented and detailed than the existing one. Clear definitions of available space and necessary space are provided. The proposal will allow more flexibility for the Regional Registries in the management of their allocated address space, based on the: . allocation of a sufficient address space to cover the needs for an 18 month period . possibility to take into account documented special needs to calculate the necessary space. ETNO supports this proposal and is convinced that Local Internet Registries and their customers will benefit from this flexibility. (1) The European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association is representing 39 major companies from 34 European countries, providing electronic communications networks over fixed, mobile or personal communications systems. ETNO's primary purpose is to establish a constructive dialogue between its member companies and actors involved in the development of the European Information Society to the benefit of users. More information on ETNO can be found at: www.etno.be

1 0