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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Sergey Myasoedov 21 May '12

21 May '12

Regarding using last /8 for PI assignments, this proposal looks fair to me. -- Sergey Monday, May 7, 2012, 4:18:52 PM, you wrote: EM> Dear Colleagues, EM> A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation EM> and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now EM> available for discussion. EM> You can find the full proposal at: EM> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 EM> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to EM> <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 4 June 2012. EM> Regards EM> Emilio Madaio EM> Policy Development Officer EM> RIPE NCC

3 2

FYI: ICANN News Alert -- Ratification of Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA
by Jaap Akkerhuis 16 May '12

16 May '12

This might be of some interest for this group. jaap ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15may12-en.htm ____________________________________ Ratification of Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA 15 May 2012 The ICANN Board has ratified the Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA as sent by the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Council to the ICANN Board on 13 March 2012. The proposal was posted for public comment from 14 March 2012 through 4 April 2012, during which time no comments were submitted. The Global Policy allows the Regional Internet Registries to return IPv4 address space to an IANA-managed pool from which equal parts will be allocated to all five RIRs in a deterministic manner on a regular schedule, once triggered. (http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/global-addressing/allocation-ipv4-pos…). ICANN staff will be taking all necessary steps to implement the Global Policy.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by Jan Ingvoldstad 15 May '12

15 May '12

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > Dear Colleagues > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now > available for discussion. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 > If I understand the rationale correctly, the change essentially means that a LIR has more time to actually implement a use of a transferred block, than they have for a new block. I am a n00b at these matters, but I don't quite see why this is an important change, and why as much as 24 months is necessary. Could someone please try to enlighten me? -- Jan

8 8

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by Chris 10 May '12

10 May '12

hi! On 05/10/2012 02:49 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 i believe the current policy allowing intra-rir-transfers from lir to lir under identical provisions as regular allocations is just and the way to go. as mentioned before, i also don't regard the attempts to pirate the ip-commons as legitimiate, and this proposal's only effect seems to be to make the anticipated 'owned-ip-product' more attractive than the 'competing product'. i formally voice strong and sustained opposition. regards, Chris

2 1

2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by Emilio Madaio 10 May '12

10 May '12

Dear Colleagues A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 7 June 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Remco Van Mook 09 May '12

09 May '12

<all hats off> Alright then, for the sake of argument I'll oppose until I see some convincing numbers. Back in the original last /8 discussion the rationale for choosing a /22 was that it would get us about 16k final allocations, or 1 for every NCC member and room for the membership to double in size. Now, we have a number of new realities: - final /8 applies to all v4 address space when it kicks in, including space that gets returned later; - It also applies to v4 address space that has not been allocated or assigned by RIPE NCC at that date; - An additional 'special case' block was set aside for IXPs. This all impacts, in a positive or negative way, how much future there is in our final /8 policy. I'd like to think that we made a well-considered decision back then, and if we're going to make a fundamental change like this one I'd like to see some numbers in an impact analysis. Based on current distribution, how much space do we anticipate will fall under the final /8 policy, how much of it will be allocated in /22 PA and how much will be allocated in /24 PI? Given the 'one size fits nobody' nature of the final /8 policy, this would be about the number of allocations/assignments done so far, not the size. Personally I'm rather sick and tired of hearing people say 'yes, let's break IPv4 so we all MUST move to IPv6'. If you think this is good policy or even good engineering, please think again. It will make us end up with a broken internet that, surprise, we won't be managing any more. Breaking IPv4 might lead to increased IPv6 adoption, but not on the internet as we know it today. Everybody who wants to connect his organisation to the internet is going to need at least some IPv4 address space for the time being, so why screw it up for new entrants? Finally, I would like to hear how this proposal correlates to the charge for PI space - the good old 2007-01 chestnut. For post-depletion LIRs, the grapes would be quite sour if one could pick up a quarter of the available resources for about one twentieth of the price. Should "Final /8 PIv4" have a separate price tag? Best Remco This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.

10 12

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by chrish＠consol.net 09 May '12

09 May '12

hi! On 05/09/2012 03:02 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 this proposal doesn't fit with the current hierarchical structure of rirs and lirs. if this hierarchical structure is to be changed, this would be an essential change. introducing such a change in just a subordinate procedure isn't the way to go. i can't see a justification or explanation why the rir/lir hierarchical structure should be changed. furthermore this proposal is incompatible with policy - with the current one, and as it doesn't change the incompatibilities also with the proposed changed policy. i don't think it's reasonable to try to drop the primacy of fair and according to need distribution of ip-space. as the readers of this ml certainly know, the proposed change is actually meant to facilitate the trade of ips, this way implying (well - trying to imply) the change to ips as an asset (with a plethora of further adverse consequences). i formally voice strong and sustained opposition. i'd suggest that inter-rir transfers simply take the canonical way: from current lir, back to current lir's rir, to target lir's rir, to the target lir. regards, Chris

3 2

2012-02 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Emilio Madaio 09 May '12

09 May '12

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 6 june 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Julien Rabier 09 May '12

09 May '12

Le 07 mai à 16:18, Emilio Madaio a écrit : > > Dear Colleagues, > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 4 June 2012. Hello, I support this proposal. Julien

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-05 Last Call for Comments (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Erik Bais 08 May '12

08 May '12

> You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 May 2012. I have 1 question before the last-call ends tomorrow. . . In the grand scheme of things and also seeing the other policies popping up for trying to divide whatever is going to be left from the final /8. If we all think that this reservation is a good thing for the good of the internet ... (And I agree on the reasoning) is reserving only a /16 from the final /8 enough? 65k /24's are in the last /8 ... and for future IXP's we 'only' reserve a /16 (256 /24's ) I would rather see that increased to a /14 if possible. Regards, Erik Bais

6 6

Ratification of the Global Policy Proposal 2011-01, "Global Policy for post, exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA"
by Emilio Madaio 08 May '12

08 May '12

Dear colleagues, The Global Policy Proposal 2011-01, "Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA" was accepted by the RIPE community in October 2011. The ICANN Board recently ratified the global policy proposal. The resolution is now available at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm The new RIPE document is ripe-529 and is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-529 Best regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Dan Luedtke 07 May '12

07 May '12

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now > available for discussion. I support this proposal. > It is likely that PI assignments from the last /8 will cause the last /8 to be consumed faster than if PI assignments were prohibited. That's a pro in my opinion. Regards Dan -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Daniel Roesen 07 May '12

07 May '12

On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 04:18:52PM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote: > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now > available for discussion. I support this policy change proposal. It makes no sense to me to disallow PI allocation within the last /8. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr(a)cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by chrish＠consol.net 07 May '12

07 May '12

hi! > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 i'd like to support this. regards, Chris

1 0

2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Emilio Madaio 07 May '12

07 May '12

Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 4 June 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2012-01 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Inter-RIR Address Transfers)
by Emilio Madaio 01 May '12

01 May '12

Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2012-01,"Inter-RIR Address Transfers", has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/archived-policy-proposals/proposals/2012… Reason for withdrawal:With respect to 2012-01, after the feedback and discussion at the RIPE 64 Meeting, the proposer decided to collaborate with other community members in submitting another policy proposal related to IPv4 transfers. Therefore the proposer decided to withdraw this proposal. Best Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Cosmetic Surgery Project: Extended Review Period on New Draft, Document for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space
by Emilio Madaio 26 Apr '12

26 Apr '12

Dear colleagues, As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC is moving forward with a review of the policy document ripe-302, "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 address space in the RIPE NCC Service Region". A draft of the policy document is online and ready for community review at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-doc… The Address Policy Working Group Co-Chairs decided to extend the review period until 24 May 2012 to allow the community more time to give their feedback. Please send your feedback on this draft document to the Address Policy Working Group at <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy
by Hank Nussbacher 25 Apr '12

25 Apr '12

At 02:42 PM 4/19/2012 +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote: >This aspect of the policy regarding legacy holders needs clarification: > >"Leave data as it is in the RIPE Registry. The Legacy Resource Holder will >not be able to add to or alter their data and will not have access to any >RIPE NCC services such as reverse delegation and certification." > >It is likely that in response to this policy legacy holders will choose to >use an alternate registrar for the services you are precluding them from >using (e.g., reverse delegation and certification). In that case RIPE NCC >will need to negotiate an interoperability or interconnection agreement >with these service alternate providers to ensure that a globally >applicable unique registration occurs. > >If RIPE NCC is not willing to do that, it appears to be attempting to >leverage its monopoly to force legacy holders into purchase and use of >their services, something that raises obvious competition policy issues. I >wouldn't advise you to do down that path. The problem is not so much the whois database but rather the delegated file which is the more "official" data for all RIRs: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest When ARIN and RIPE did their ERX thing in 2003, ARIN mistakenly transferred 4600+ IP blocks to RIPE with country=EU rather than country=xx. There are numerous software packages that use the delegated data to do geolocation. Examples: http://code.google.com/p/ci-geoip/ http://16bytes.com/geo_locating-html/ https://metacpan.org/module/IP::Country::DB_File::Builder http://www.codecodex.com/wiki/IP_Address_to_Country So your IP block would not say your country code but rather EU. There is one commercial firewall that uses the delegated data incorrectly as well and hides the details behind something more powerful than a firewall - a lawyerwall. RIPE NCC is unwilling to fix this, unless one submits the legacy IP space to be listed under a LIR. -Hank

8 15

Minutes from RIPE 63: final
by Gert Doering 24 Apr '12

24 Apr '12

Dear AP WG, the minutes from RIPE 63 have been declared "final" and can be found online at https://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ap/minutes/minutes-from-ripe-63 thanks again to the scribes for a huge piece of work well done. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

Assign before use?
by Florian Weimer 21 Apr '12

21 Apr '12

The IPv4 policy doesn't seem to say this explicitly, but my impression is that address space has to be assigned before it can be used. Is this correct?

1 0

IPv4 Maintenance Policy
by Rob Blokzijl 20 Apr '12

20 Apr '12

Dear Colleagues, on the agenda for the Adress Policy WG next week is a presentation of a document titled "IPv4 Maintenance Policy", attached to this mail. This is a document that is slightly different from or usual type of policy documents: it is an attempt to consolidate those policies and practices that will still be relevant after the depletion of the IPv4 free pool. The aim is to have a consistent and complete collection of all things relevant to IPv4 for the years to come. Read, digest, enjoy - and discuss :-) Best regards, Rob Blokzijl

9 10

Re: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01)
by John Curran 17 Apr '12

17 Apr '12

On Apr 14, 2012, at 10:39 AM, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > Global coordination of a "commons" that is done on regional and national basis. As has been noted, there already is a successfully working process for submission of global policies in the Internet number registry system In fact, I pointed that fact out specifically to Milton the other day - <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/04/06/the-coming-trade-war-in-ip-add…> Whether one first seeks regional policies, gains experiences and awareness of the issues and then seeks consensus on a global policy, or one simply goes for the global policy from the beginning is a matter of personal preference. If there are lessons in global process to be learned from other bodies, then I'd love to hear of them, but such seems independent to the consideration of draft policies already underway in the regions under existing processes. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

9 17

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by David Monosov 16 Apr '12

16 Apr '12

Dear address-policy-wg, Ms. Brown, At present, RIPE NCC keeps extensive notes of all resources and actors involved in each direct assignment and allocation. This includes, for example, detailed ticket histories and revisions of the WHOIS database. This provides RIPE NCC with visibility into systemic abuse attempts of services it offers and enables it to challenge such attempts. Wouldn't 2012-01 without a uniform framework across all RIRs that includes provisions for extensive information sharing eliminate this already weak checkpoint by essentially making each RIR see half of each story? At the extreme, it might even encourage the flow of resources from "better informed" toward "less informed" RIRs, while potentially opening new loopholes and avenues for abuse and resource hoarding - especially when it may have increasing financial rewards. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov On 04/02/2012 03:39 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 30 April 2012. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > on behalf of the Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > >

1 0

declining 2012-01
by Erik Bais 15 Apr '12

15 Apr '12

I don't agree with the current policy. Reasoning : As Gert already stated: companies will find ways around this anyway by selling parts of their companies / stocks which would have the IP’s otherwise. I already heard of a situation where an Asian based company opened a UK ltd just to become a RIPE LIR member in order to be able to apply for IP in our region. Bottom line is. People with a specific goal are cunning and more creative than what we allow or not in a specific policy. Especially if (a lot of) money is involved. However by releasing this policy, (semi)authorizing a market that would prolong IPv4 lifetime and further delay v6 deployment, would give the wrong signal to the public in my personal opinion. Any kind of transfer of unused space, should go back to the RIR and not end up with the highest bidder. The sooner people realize that v4 is soo 2000, the better for us all. Regards, Erik Bais

10 16

In favor of 2012-01
by Milton L Mueller 13 Apr '12

13 Apr '12

> this is exactly the problem. this implies that the ip space is an asset of the > seller, which it is not. it is a commons, and if it is sparse, as any one has the > same right to it, it is to be redistributed according to need, fair and equally. The IP address space is not and never has been a commons. Not for those of us who actually understand the vocabulary of resource economics and know what the term "commons" means. For IP addresses to be a "commons" they all would have to be available for use for anyone at any time; i.e., there would have to be no exclusive occupation of it. And of course that doesn't work technically, does it? IP address blocks have to be uniquely and exclusively assigned to specific users to function on the internet. Which means the address pool is not a commons - end of story. Because IP addresses are exclusively assigned, they can be governed either as common pool resources (in which a governance agency establishes rules regulating the extraction of resource units from a free pool) or as tradeable property (in which holders allocate the resources by making trades among themselves) or some combination of both. All that matters is which method is more efficient and produces more benefits for Internet users. Leave your religious beliefs behind. But after IPv4 exhaustion, common pool governance of v4 space breaks down completely and the best way to ensure efficient utilization of remaining v4 resources is to allow market-based transfers. These transfers should be made as flexible and easy as possible. There is probably no need for holding periods, although they don't seem to do a lot of harm as long as they are 1 year or less. Needs assessment is increasingly arbitrary and pointless in such an environment. I know needs-basis is another item of religious faith in some circles, but the idea that RIR staff can accurately assess "need" given inherent uncertainty about time horizons and technical development, is just wrong. Organizations should be allowed to buy as much of an asset as they think they need, and can afford, in order to advance their business interests. Let the price system sort out who really needs what. It should also be obvious that the market for these addresses should be global, not regional. Thus, I support proposed policy 2012-01, my only reservation being that the policy specifies that "Where the recipient is in another region, the conditions on the recipient as defined in the counterpart RIR's transfer policy at the time of the transfer will apply." In this blog post I raised some issues with that and hope that the authors of the policy would respond. http://www.internetgovernance.org/ Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org

11 14