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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis
by Arash Naderpour 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

Hi Erik, It may increase the cost or make it make less attractive, but I believe it would be just a temporary affect. Making less attractive is not a good argument to support it (to me) Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Erik Bais [mailto:erik@bais.name] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:48 AM To: Arash Naderpour; 'Gert Doering' Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Hi Arash, > "This policy proposal will not prevent organisations from setting up > one or more LIRs and hoarding the /22s. It will only add a two-year > restriction before a /22 from the last /8 can be transferred." The 24 month period will increase the cost of the 'hoarding' ... which makes it a lot less attractive to do it.. This policy change will make it a lot more expensive for the current 'abusers of the intent of the policy' to see this as a viable business model.. Regards, Erik Bais

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
by Arash Naderpour 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

-1 to this proposal. Regards, Arash Naderpour

4 6

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 20
by Lu Heng 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

Ciprian: I don't believe UK tax payers will be ok with their government giving up 100m Euro assets, that being said, market is the market, just like the land in California 200 years ago are practically free while today might cost 10m to get a small apartment in the bay area, it is the new reality here and everybody have to deal with it. And for the /22, I fully support the policy and I believe such abuse should not happen. and such abuse practically turns the last /8 policy useless. If we should allow such abuse then why shouldn't we just completely deplete the IPv4 instead of reserving the last /8. One thing do worries me though, by doing a simple math: (2000+1600+1600)/1000=5.2Euro/IP in cost, if future IP price reaches 10 Euro or up, we might still not able to stop such abuse, unless we make the last /22 totally untransferable. Just my two cents. With regards. Lu On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:16 PM, <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Garry Glendown) > 2. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Ciprian Nica) > 3. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Opteamax GmbH) > 4. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Tore Anderson) > 5. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Ciprian Nica) > 6. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Ciprian Nica) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:49:57 +0200 > From: Garry Glendown <garry(a)nethinks.com> > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <55774365.9050801(a)nethinks.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Guten Tag, > > We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder > > is not equal to solving the problem. > _WHO_ is this policy change affecting? Any legitimate business not set > on circumventing RIPE policy will, as Ciprian wrote, become an LIR in > order to use the IPs. And use them for 2+ years ... the only situations > that come to mind in which an LIR might want to transfer their IPs is > either if they are being bought (tough luck for the buying company, at > least they will not be able to transfer ownership for up to two years), > or if they go broke, in which case the IPs assigned wouldn't need to be > available anymore ... > > -garry > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 22:53:17 +0300 > From: Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> > To: Garry Glendown <garry(a)nethinks.com>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <5577442D.7060903(a)ip-broker.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Hi, > > > On 6/9/2015 10:28 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: > > > >>>> - help the last /8 pool become even larger > >>> Measures for IP space conservation have ensured availability of > >>> addresses over the last ~10 years - if sensible decisions about > policies > >>> cause push the frame further than previous measures have, I'd say: Job > >>> well done! Hopefully, by the time the Internet disables IPv4 there are > >>> still IPv4 addresses available for assignment by RIRs ... > >> Here I can't agree but I also can't contradict you. There are opinions > >> that say if the perspective that IPv4 will really be exhausted it will > >> push ISPs to deploy IPv6 sooner. If you tell them that there will be > >> IPv4 resources for RIPE to give even in 10-20 years, then probably many > >> will say let's see if we live to that time and then we'll make a > decision. > > OK, maybe we are getting somewhere: Apart from you contradicting > > yourself in part, you would consider IPv4 shortage to push v6 > > deployment. > > As I said, there are opinions that say the perspective of real IPv4 > exhaustion would push IPv6 deployment. I don't have a maginifing glass > to make predictions, I have my opinion on that matter but I don't think > it's usefull to elaborate on that. > > >> Let's not help the prices raise then. The demand for IPs is supported > >> by real needs as otherwise nobody would pay so much money for them. In > >> a free economy when you shorten the supply, prices will grow. If there > >> would have been a policy that would say let's get back the IPs from > >> those who don't use them, that would really help. > > But we have a limited supply - if RIRs didn't put policies in place to > > reduce IP use, we would have already run out quite some time ago. Just > > by ignoring the fact that there is an IP shortage doesn't make it go > away. > > Again, my opinion is that we can learn by observing the effects of > previous policies. > > I didn't want to get involved into discussing this policy as I noticed > everyone gets in all kind of details which don't get the problem solved. > I don't believe this policy is a usefull step in the right direction. > > As I mentioned earlier there are no positive effects, it doesn't help > conserve the last /8 pool and there are no benefits to the community by > adopting it. That's what's important. All other discussions lead to > polemics that should be taken somewhere else. Maybe at the RIPE meetings. > > Ciprian Nica > IP Broker Ltd. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:57:37 +0200 > From: Opteamax GmbH <ripe(a)opteamax.de> > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <55774531.9050009(a)opteamax.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > On 09.06.2015 19:54, Ciprian Nica wrote:> > > Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and > > I'll fully support it. > > The only proposal which would actually fully stop this is actually > refusing Prefix-Transfers completely and enforce returning to the > RIPE-Pool. > > The only chance for taking-over Resources then should be a real "merge" > of two LIR including the demand of their individual customers justifying > why it is important to not being renumbered ... That kind of proposal > would actually remove a lot of "profit-making" for brokers etc. on one > hand, but on the other hand it offers the opportunity to the ones really > needing IPv4-Space to get their need fullfilled by RIPE... at least if > that kind of proposal would also enforce withdrawing IP-space which is > not being really used for a while. > > Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not > publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd > have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the > routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public > IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 > with less then one /21 announced.... and I do not want to know how many > of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a > blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets. > > ... and we discuss about /22 nets being "hoarded"? > > Sorry, could not resist to point on that. > > Still I support the proposal because it reduces the win for abusers and > raises the risk that the now "hoarded" addresses are less worth when > they are sellable. Hey, it is on us to make IPv4-Prefixes worthless. > > Best regards > > -- > Jens Ott > > Opteamax GmbH > > Simrockstr. 4b > 53619 Rheinbreitbach > > Tel.: +49 2224 969500 > Fax: +49 2224 97691059 > Email: jo(a)opteamax.de > > HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur > Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 21:59:57 +0200 > From: Tore Anderson <tore(a)fud.no> > To: Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> > Cc: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <20150609215957.407aba88(a)envy.fud.no> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hi Ciprian, > > * Ciprian Nica > > > What should be pointed out is the effects of the policy and if the > > community will benefit from it or some small group of people. > > > > To summarize the effects will be : > > - higher membership fees > > Nope. The RIPE NCC membership is steadily growing[1], and as a result the > membership fee has steadily been decreasing[2]. > > [1] https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs > [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-620 > > The main reason for this growth is *actual network operators* joining > in order to make use of the ?last /8 policy?. Even if we managed to > stop *all* the "create LIR; transfer /22; close LIR" abuse, that would > not reverse this trend. > > Also, keep in mind that these "create; transfer; close" LIRs will pay > the NCC as little as they can get away with. As I understand it, that > means the sign-up fee and one yearly membership fee. If the goal is to > increase the NCC's revenue and lower the membership fees, it is much > better long-term strategy to deny these "create; transfer; close" LIRs > and instead keep the /22s in reserve for future LIRs belonging to > *actual network operators*. Why? Because these will actually *keep > paying their membership fees* instead of closing down as soon as > possible. > > > What is the expected positive effect ? To preserve the last /8 pool ? > > The one that increased to 18.1 million IPs ? > > The by far biggest contributor to the RIPE NCC's ?last /8? pool has > been the IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space pool[4]. > > [4] > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-recovered-address-space/ipv4-recovere… > > This pool contained quite a bit of space when it was first activate, > and the RIPE NCC has to date received 3,670,016 IPv4 addresses from it > (/11+/12+/13). It is important to note, though, that the IANA pool *is > not replenishing*. It has been almost three years ago since any > significant amounts of space was added to it (back in 2012-08). > > So we cannot expect that allocations from the IANA pool will continue > to match the rate of /22 allocations from the RIPE NCC's ?last /8? pool > in the future. Therefore I have every expectation that we'll start > seeing ?last /8? pool actually start to drain soon. > > For what it's worth, since the first ?last /8? allocation was made 995 > days ago (cake in five days!), a total of 6,657,280 IPv4 addresses has > been delegated by the NCC. Our share of the remaining IANA pool is on > the other hand only 425,625 addresses. > > So all in all, I think that preserving the last /8 pool is indeed a > valuable goal. If possible I'd like to see it last for another ten > years - but given today's burn rate, the current 18.1M addresses plus > whatever's coming from IANA will not suffice. > > Tore > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:00:55 +0300 > From: Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> > To: Garry Glendown <garry(a)nethinks.com>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <557745F7.8060102(a)ip-broker.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > There can be startups that get sold before 2 years and they would get > affected or companies that go broke and try to get back part of their > investment, but, as you saw, the guys that do circumvent RIPE policy > will still be able to do it, so it won't affect them. > > Ciprian > > On 6/9/2015 10:49 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: > > Guten Tag, > >> We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder > >> is not equal to solving the problem. > > _WHO_ is this policy change affecting? Any legitimate business not set > > on circumventing RIPE policy will, as Ciprian wrote, become an LIR in > > order to use the IPs. And use them for 2+ years ... the only situations > > that come to mind in which an LIR might want to transfer their IPs is > > either if they are being bought (tough luck for the buying company, at > > least they will not be able to transfer ownership for up to two years), > > or if they go broke, in which case the IPs assigned wouldn't need to be > > available anymore ... > > > > -garry > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:16:27 +0300 > From: Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> > To: Opteamax GmbH <ripe(a)opteamax.de>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <5577499B.6020801(a)ip-broker.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi Jens, > > I totally agree with most of what you said. When the "depletion" was > announced I took a look at the global routing table and when I saw that > only 60% of the 4.2 billion IPv4 addresses were announced, I thought > something is wrong. > > I really didn't imagine any sane person would pay so much money for IPs > but probably the ones that predicted or helped this happen, were smart > enough to hoard the pre-last /8s. > > If it were possible, I think they should be the first source for taking > back IPs and obviously corporations or organisations that sit on /8s > should be somehow persuaded to give them back. > > When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to > sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were > rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked > about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in > use and they can't give up on it. > > Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking > advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence > and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, > that would be a real benefit. > > UK's DWP sold 131K IPs in one shot. They sit on another 16+ million IPs > and you take your rage on the 2 russians that sold 30K IPs each over the > last year ? Let's stop the ants too, but I would rather start with the > elefants. > > Ciprian > > On 6/9/2015 10:57 PM, Opteamax GmbH wrote: > > > > On 09.06.2015 19:54, Ciprian Nica wrote:> > >> Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and > >> I'll fully support it. > > > > The only proposal which would actually fully stop this is actually > > refusing Prefix-Transfers completely and enforce returning to the > RIPE-Pool. > > > > The only chance for taking-over Resources then should be a real "merge" > > of two LIR including the demand of their individual customers justifying > > why it is important to not being renumbered ... That kind of proposal > > would actually remove a lot of "profit-making" for brokers etc. on one > > hand, but on the other hand it offers the opportunity to the ones really > > needing IPv4-Space to get their need fullfilled by RIPE... at least if > > that kind of proposal would also enforce withdrawing IP-space which is > > not being really used for a while. > > > > Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not > > publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd > > have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the > > routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public > > IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 > > with less then one /21 announced.... and I do not want to know how many > > of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a > > blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets. > > > > ... and we discuss about /22 nets being "hoarded"? > > > > Sorry, could not resist to point on that. > > > > Still I support the proposal because it reduces the win for abusers and > > raises the risk that the now "hoarded" addresses are less worth when > > they are sellable. Hey, it is on us to make IPv4-Prefixes worthless. > > > > Best regards > > > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 20 > ************************************************* > --

1 0

2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published be mailing list
by Amir Mohsen 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

Hi, I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve the problem

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Gerald K. 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

You're right, I meant "we from AS20783". I thought this was clear. -- Gerald (AS20783) Am 09.06.2015 um 15:28 schrieb Vladimir Andreev: > Don't generalize please. "We" don't really mean "all". > > 09.06.2015, 16:26, "Gerald K." <gerald(a)ax.tc>: >> After all the pros and cons - we support 2015-01! >> >> -- >> Gerald (AS20783) >> >> Am 11.05.2015 um 13:43 schrieb Marco Schmidt: >>> 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 > > -- > With best regards, Vladimir Andreev > General director, QuickSoft LLC > Tel: +7 903 1750503 >

1 0

FW: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by poty＠iiat.ru 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

Hi, I'm completely for the proposal and think that it could bring some initial intentions in place with reality. +1 Regards, Vladislav Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andre Keller Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 4:31 PM To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Hi, On 11.05.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 June 2015. I support this proposal. I do not think that this will have a big impact, but it certainly brings the policy in alignment with the original intent. Regards André

1 0

policy 2015-1
by Amir Mohsenian 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

hi policy 2015-1 not good and me -1 for policy

2 3

-1 for 2015-1
by پیمان پورحکاک 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

hi policy 2015-1 not good and me -1 for policy

2 1

I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01)
by Amir Mohsen 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

-1 I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01)

1 0

(no subject)
by Amir Mohsen 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

-1 I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01)

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by listas 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by Mathew Newton 08 Jun '15

08 Jun '15

On 08/06/2015 14:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI > When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. Fully support.

1 0

2015-03 Draft Document and Impact Analysis will be produced (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by Marco Schmidt 05 Jun '15

05 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, The discussion period for the proposal described in 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size" has ended. A new draft document and the RIPE NCC Impact Analysis will now be prepared for review. We will publish the documents shortly and we will make an announcement. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

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

2015-02 Impact Analysis will be produced (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by Marco Schmidt 14 May '15

14 May '15

Dear colleagues, The discussion period for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has ended. The RIPE NCC Impact Analysis will now be prepared for review. We will publish the document shortly and we will make an announcement. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by Marco Schmidt 14 May '15

14 May '15

Dear colleagues, 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 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 27 May 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

15 30

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Sander Steffann 13 May '15

13 May '15

Hi, > A good point and one that hadn't occurred to me. If this was to > be interpreted as "must make assignments", would this proposal > even be necessary? Everyone receiving resources and immediately > transferring them would be in violation of the policy and, > strictly speaking, all transfers of this kind that have already > happened would be invalid? My argument was mainly to point out that this behaviour is against the spirit of the policy, in response to: > So, yes, an assumption that one can join the NCC now and get a /22 with the intent to "sell" it is reasonable. But yes, if no assignments happened at all I agree that the allocation would not be according to policy. However, people trying to cheat the system could just make fake assignments for a short period of time and then they would strictly speaking comply with the policy. They would still be dishonest though, which is why I feel that we shouldn't take this practice into account when writing new policy. If you want to look up the history of this, here is the message from Tore when he introduced that line in the policy: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-August/00815… Cheers, Sander

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 45, Issue 8
by Callum Stuart 12 May '15

12 May '15

Someone has made the comments on this article from ripe labs. Any comments from the community? How can this kind of thing happen in the ripe? Prior to the ripe depletion, it is even hard for my org to apply for a /19. Now my org can only apply for a /22! So as to keep low profile to have Lu Heng’s IPs sold. He had created another shell named Wuhan Yunwaiheng Information Technology Co., Ltd registered in Wuhan, Hubei Province of China ( its Chinese name is:武汉云外恒信息技术有限公司). And then have his IPs sold under this new shell without attracting too much attentions from the RIPE community. He has earned more than 4millions USD for selling his IPs. By the way, cos of this business structure, he can avoid heaps of taxes which should be paid to Netherland Gov and Overseas Gov. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen ( this is where Lu heng graduated) 31.201.0.0/16 2011-04-28 PA SOLD AS35916 (US） 37.222.0.0/15 PA SOLD AS16276 （ovh, France） ;AS35916 46.136.0.0/16 PA SOLD AS8312（kpn Netherland）;AS35916 5.132.0.0/16 2012-07-12 PA ( Split for sales） /17 left for future sale AS35916 5.224.0.0/15 2012-09-06 SOLD AS35916 178.236.224.0/20 PA Still available for Sale AS16276 Lu Heng still has /17 +/20 left available for Sale in RIPE and one aggregated Afrinic 154.80.0.0/12 ( Currently in Rental business). The Business structure of OutsideHeaven: The main Body of OutsideHeaven was registered in Tax heaven place ( Netherland). Then come the lower Body OutsideHeaven Hangzhou ( registered in Zhejiang Province of China) and the other lower Body Wuhan Yunwaiheng Information Technology ( registered in Hubei Province of China). Under this kind of structure, the company of Lu Heng has avoided to pay the taxes he should pay to the Chinese Government. His main Body registration info: His shell company’s registration info written in holland language. However, you can use google translate to understand. Please note this company does not pay any tax in Holland and in China. Online inzage uittreksel KvK-nummer 01133738 Deze inschrijving valt onder beheer van Kamer van Koophandel Noord-Nederland Onderneming Handelsnamen OutsideHeaven AnytimeChinese Voor Altijd Rechtsvorm Eenmanszaak Startdatum onderneming 26-06-2008 Activiteiten SBI-code: 620102 - Ontwikkelen en produceren van maatwerksoftware SBI-code: 6203 - Beheer van computerfaciliteiten Werkzame personen 0 Vestiging Vestigingsnummer 000005125421 Handelsnamen OutsideHeaven AnytimeChinese Voor Altijd Bezoekadres Esdoornlaan 656, 9741MH Groningen Telefoonnummer 0641734323 Internetadressen www.anytimechinese.com (http://www.anytimechinese.com) www.anytimechinese.net (http://www.anytimechinese.net) E-mailadres info(a)anytimechinese.com (mailto:info@anytimechinese.com) Datum vestiging 26-06-2008 Activiteiten SBI-code: 620102 - Ontwikkelen en produceren van maatwerksoftware SBI-code: 6203 - Beheer van computerfaciliteiten Webdesign. Het exploiteren van een informatieve website. Het geven van informatie over China aan ondernemers. De export van online gamecards. Het beheren van computernetwerken. ICT dienstverlening. Beheren van ICT infrastructuur. Werkzame personen 0 Eigenaar Naam Lu, Heng Geboortedatum en -plaats 01-09-1988, Onbekend, China Adres Esdoornlaan 656, 9741MH Groningen Datum in functie 26-06-2008 One of His Chinese Dummy Corporation named 杭州云外恒网络技术有限公司 in Chinese／English name: outside heaven If you look at its websites, there is no update since 2013 http://www.outsideheaven.com/zh-cn/news You can search the company registration info via link http://122.224.75.235:7082/wsdjpt/ The other of his Chinese Dummy Corporation named Wuhan Yunwaiheng Information Technology Co., Ltd registered in Wuhan, Hubei Province of China ( its Chinese name is:武汉云外恒信息技术有限公司) You can search the company registration info via link http://gssoso.whhd.gov.cn/dhb/index.html Ironically, a Clever Chinese guy without “Euro blood” can be "smart Enough" to have as many RIPE IPs as he can. On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 2:55 AM, address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net) wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net) > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net) > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg-owner@ripe.net) > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Transfers in the RIPE NCC Service > Region (Sebastian Wiesinger) > 2. Re: New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Transfers in the RIPE NCC Service > Region (remco van mook) > 3. Re: New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Transfers in the RIPE NCC Service > Region (Hannigan, Martin) > 4. Re: New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Transfers in the RIPE NCC Service > Region (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 13:54:14 +0200 > From: Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian(a)karotte.org (mailto:sebastian@karotte.org)> > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net) > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Transfers in > the RIPE NCC Service Region > Message-ID: <20150508115414.GA23553(a)danton.fire-world.de (mailto:20150508115414.GA23553@danton.fire-world.de)> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > * Dan L?dtke <mail(a)danrl.de (mailto:mail@danrl.de)> [2015-05-08 11:33]: > > See, we can not win this games. Let?s stop wasting energy and > > resources on dealing with legacy IP and how to make it work for a > > bit longer. New entrants are entering are market that is not fair, > > and we can not make a real difference. The only way forward is to > > push IPv6 and restore a healthy climate regarding the availability > > of IP addresses. > > > > > Dan, > > if you don't want to invest your time trying to make this market more > fair by all means go ahead and do something else. There are still > people here who would like to try so that new players can enter a > market that will be dominated by IPv4 for some time to come. > > Most people here are pushing IPv6 but as much as you want to bury IPv4 > it will still be around for some time. > > Regards > > Sebastian > > -- > GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) > 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. > -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant >

4 3

Re: [address-policy-wg] mesh / community networks? 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by William Waites 11 May '15

11 May '15

Hi Vesna! Nice to hear from you. You say that this is about governmental networks but that is not actually mentioned in the proposal itself. If you are correct then the proposal should be changed to explicitly mention that. If you are not correct then this just leaves more discretion to RIPE, which is fine -- I've always found the NCC to be rational and reasonable. For an organisation like HUBS which has small but autonomous member networks and a /29, we basically do: 2a04:5d00::/32 -- pool for /64 networks with /44 allocated to each member. 2a04:5d01::/32 -- pool for /48 networks with /40 allocated to each member (currently unused!). 2a04:5d02::/32 -- reserved. 2a04:5d03::/32 -- reserved. 2a04:5d04::/32 -- experimental 2a04:5d05::/32 -- reserved. 2a04:5d06::/32 -- reserved. 2a04:5d07::/32 -- reserved. In a country with 5 million population -- even several times that -- this ought to be plenty. If we need more I would expect to have to justify it! This does not really bear on DFZ routing table size unless there is a global policy on the horizon that will forbid announcing /44 or /40 networks i.e. when one of our members becomes multi-homed. The current policy says, "If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of existing users and the extent of the organisation's infrastructure." Deleting this is ok. Also ok would be substituting "extent and structure" for "extent". Without knowing any better I would have interpreted this as giving equal weight to number of users and topology. If you have a lot of users you get a big allocation. If your topology justifies you get a big allocation. So it may actually be that we don't even need a new policy, just more clarity on the interpretation. Cheers, -w On Mon, 11 May 2015 09:18:15 +0200, Vesna Manojlovic <BECHA(a)ripe.net> said: > Hi, there is this policy proposal (below) that is going to > change criteria for allocations to _governmental_ / national > networks -- but!! Maybe it can be used for the community > networks too?? > Would you be interested in reading this proposal, and seeing if > it would be sufficient, or are there any modifications possible > to suit your needs? > Now is the time :) > If you have any questions about "policy development process", > please let me know! > In short: you (anyone) can write to the mailing list below, and > say what you think of this proposal - agree, disagree, or how it > could be modified, and why. Then there will be more discussion, > proposal might get changed and finally accepted -- or > refused. If it's accepted, it becomes a new "policy", that is: > rules for allocating IPv6 to LIrs -- or their customers! > Concretely, if "additional aspects" can be expressed in terms > that "participants in mesh network are not countable customers" > and there is no "infrastructure" in the mesh... then maybe this > will work out better for the future community networks. > Thanks, Vesna > -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [staff] > [policy-announce] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment > Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) Date: Tue, 28 Apr > 2015 14:00:40 +0200 From: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> > Reply-To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net To: > policy-announce(a)ripe.net CC: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Dear colleagues, > 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 > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments > to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 27 May 2015. > Regards > Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1