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

Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2006-01 set back to Discussion Phase (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
by Remco van Mook 25 Nov '08

25 Nov '08

With the comments of Nick in mind I support this proposal. Best, Remco ----- Original Message ----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net <address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Cc: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> Sent: Tue Nov 25 18:20:47 2008 Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2006-01 set back to Discussion Phase (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) Ana Matic wrote: > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments > to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 December 2008. This proposal has improved substantially since v3.0, and it is long overdue. While I support it as-is, I have two comments. - the "temporary" status of the proposal has been changed to permanent. This is a good move, and merely recognition that reclaiming address space is an enormously difficult challenge, even if assigned on a temporary basis. - while a requirement for multihoming is useful, it should be made clear during implementation that this is not necessarily a requirement for multihoming using ASNs and BGP on the public Internet (however we care to define that term). Private interconnection to third parties is also a fully legitimate justification for assignment of provider independent number resources. Nick 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, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.

1 0

2007-05 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (IPv6 ULA-Central)
by Ana Matic 25 Nov '08

25 Nov '08

PDP Number: 2007-05 IPv6 ULA-Central Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2007-05, "IPv6 ULA-Central" has been withdrawn. The proposer decided to withdraw this proposal and wait for the IETF process on the subject to conclude. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC Asst. Policy Development Officer

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
by Greg L. 18 Nov '08

18 Nov '08

Current IPv4 already provides more advantage to ccTLD and gTLD with IPv4 /24 prefix allocations for BGP anycast than for other business entities that would like to get /24 prefix for BGP anycast DNS deployments. I don't see a reason why more resources should be allocated to a specific group/entities named under "Critical infrastructure" category that still compete with businesses that are unable to get /24 BGP anycast assignment for DNS solutions from Ripe. This is not fair (it was a bit fair when gTLD and ccTLD started out 5+ years ago). This is why many European companies prefer Arin's IP space. Welcome to Arin! At 18:09 2008.11.17.t Cá', you wrote: >Ondrej, > in the light of the comments on my proposal for ENUM anycast > assignments discussed in Dubai, I was planning to write a revised policy > proposal to go through PDP, I will be taking action on this as soon as > the minutes/webcast from Dubai are available. I think it's safe to say we > are working towards the same/similar goal and I think it's important that > we don't both do the same work. I will have a first draft of my proposal > here in the next couple of weeks. > >Regards > >Brett Carr > >Nominet UK > > >On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ondøej Surý ><<mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz>ondrej.sury(a)nic.cz> wrote: >Hello everybody, > >I would like to post unformal proposal before writing >official policy modification proposal (and/or having >discussion tomorrow on Open Hour). > >We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modified >to allow /24 *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* to >gTLD/ccTLD. > >First reason behind this is that one PI is not really >enough and it's blocking us to deploy more DNS servers >and make our TLD service more reliable. > >Second reason is that if we deploy more Anycasted DNS >servers we could keep (or drop down) number of NS records >for TLD, so we could manage to keep DNS reply size low >even with DNSSEC. > >And last, but not least, it would be good to keep this >synchronized with other regions (see [1],[2]). Note: >we may also extend the list of requestors to: >Root DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, IANA, RIRs. >Which I think is reasonable list. > >1. ><http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2>http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2 >2. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#3-4-1 > >If there is at least some consensus, I am willing to >write official policy change proposal. > >Ondrej >-- > Ondøej Surý > technický øeditel/Chief Technical Officer > ----------------------------------------- > CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry > Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic > mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz <http://nic.cz/>http://nic.cz/ > <mailto:sip%3Aondrej.sury@nic.cz>sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 > mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 > ----------------------------------------- > >

4 3

Re: [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
by Greg L. 17 Nov '08

17 Nov '08

Yes, correct.. my main point was not to block any proposals, I just wanted to comment that PI assignations must be more open to businesses that require it for BGP anycasting (multihoming etc) in Ripe region as it is in Arin region. My apologies for the comments that I sent in reply to your emails - probably a wrong discussion/thread. I just remember the problems we had and how easy it was when we moved our client to Arin IP space. However, I believe http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html "PI Assignment Size" proposal is aimed to solve the problem with PI allocation of /24 when routing is the major issue. This is something that Arin already has in their policy and works like a charm. Unfortunately, I haven't heard much about this proposal lately - it's been in "Awaiting Decision from WG Chair " status. Greg At 21:46 2008.11.17.t Cá', OndÅej SurÃ½ wrote: >2008/11/17 Greg L. <bgp2(a)linuxadmin.org>: > > One /24 prefix for TLD's DNS should be more than enough anyway. > >Why do you think so? > > > If you are hosting ccTLD or gTLD it shouldn't automatically qualify you > > for "Critical infrastructure". A small country with 200 ccTLD domains > > registered is not more critical than some business hosting 120,000 > > .com/.net domains (a DNS service not ccTLD or gTLD). Maybe a high > > reliability and uptime for this company is more critical to be in business > > than a small ccTLD with just 2 million of DNS queries. > >I agree here with you. My proposal is same as ARINs policy that CI MAY get >more then one prefix and it should be up to RIPE NCC hostmaster decision >if they allow TLD to get more then one prefix. Something like a plan >of deployment, etc. - small TLD would not be able to deploy many anycast >nodes around the globe. > > > However, the small ccTLD get's /24 allocated without problems in Ripe > > region, the other company does NOT. > >Again "the other company does NOT" should not be a reason why TLD should not >be able to get more than one prefix. If you don't like current policy change >it or at least try to change it. Blocking reasonable (my POV) proposal just >because you're angry that you had to move to Arin region will get us nowhere. > > > Well I do not care much anyway since we have moved clients to Arin IP space > > and meet all the requirements there and we are happy. > >Alright now you are saying that Arin's policy is good. Maybe you should >started your email conversation with proposal that you would like to see >RIPE policy to allow PI assignments to other businesses as well. > > > I just wanted to comment that /24 prefix for anycast should be more open > > to businesses that meet some other criteria not just ccTLD or gTLD hosting. > >Here we may get to some level of agreement. Constructive proposals are most >welcome. > >Ondrej. >-- > Ondrej Sury > technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer > ----------------------------------------- > CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry > Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic > mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ > sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 > mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 > -----------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
by Greg L. 17 Nov '08

17 Nov '08

At 18:15 2008.11.17.t Cá', B C wrote: >On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Greg L. ><<mailto:bgp2@linuxadmin.org>bgp2(a)linuxadmin.org> wrote: >Current IPv4 already provides more advantage to ccTLD and gTLD with IPv4 >/24 prefix allocations for BGP anycast than for other business entities >that would like to get /24 prefix for BGP anycast DNS deployments. > > I don't see a reason why more resources should be allocated to a > specific group/entities named under "Critical infrastructure" category > that still compete with businesses that are unable to get /24 BGP anycast > assignment for DNS solutions from Ripe. > > >I think that the term Critical Infrastructure speaks for itself really >doesn't it, without scalable and stable DNS deployments at the TLD level >the businesses you refer to would be at risk because of their parents >potential instability. > >I guess it depends on what you define as Critical Infrastructure, I am >just talking about ccTLD/gTLD and ENUM registries/entity getting >allocations for Anycasting their TLD DNS servers, by definition these are >not in competition with businesses who are not in the TLD arena and >therefore I don't believe there is a 'fairness' issue. One /24 prefix for TLD's DNS should be more than enough anyway. If you are hosting ccTLD or gTLD it shouldn't automatically qualify you for "Critical infrastructure". A small country with 200 ccTLD domains registered is not more critical than some business hosting 120,000 .com/.net domains (a DNS service not ccTLD or gTLD). Maybe a high reliability and uptime for this company is more critical to be in business than a small ccTLD with just 2 million of DNS queries. However, the small ccTLD get's /24 allocated without problems in Ripe region, the other company does NOT. Well I do not care much anyway since we have moved clients to Arin IP space and meet all the requirements there and we are happy. I just wanted to comment that /24 prefix for anycast should be more open to businesses that meet some other criteria not just ccTLD or gTLD hosting. > >This is not fair (it was a bit fair when gTLD and ccTLD started out 5+ >years ago). > > >I'm interested to know what has changed in this area in the last 5 years >and why you consider the fairness has changed? Faster pipes, CPU power, better firewalls.... (cheaper HW)... Greg > >This is why many European companies prefer Arin's IP space. Welcome to Arin! > > >Well of course they are free to use ARIN space if they are able to meet >their allocation policies. > >Brett > > > >At 18:09 2008.11.17.t Cá', you wrote: >>Ondrej, >> in the light of the comments on my proposal for ENUM anycast >> assignments discussed in Dubai, I was planning to write a revised policy >> proposal to go through PDP, I will be taking action on this as soon as >> the minutes/webcast from Dubai are available. I think it's safe to say >> we are working towards the same/similar goal and I think it's important >> that we don't both do the same work. I will have a first draft of my >> proposal here in the next couple of weeks. >> >>Regards >> >>Brett Carr >> >>Nominet UK >> >> >>On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ondøej Surý >><<mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz>ondrej.sury(a)nic.cz> wrote: >>Hello everybody, >>I would like to post unformal proposal before writing >>official policy modification proposal (and/or having >>discussion tomorrow on Open Hour). >>We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modified >>to allow /24 *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* to >>gTLD/ccTLD. >>First reason behind this is that one PI is not really >>enough and it's blocking us to deploy more DNS servers >>and make our TLD service more reliable. >>Second reason is that if we deploy more Anycasted DNS >>servers we could keep (or drop down) number of NS records >>for TLD, so we could manage to keep DNS reply size low >>even with DNSSEC. >>And last, but not least, it would be good to keep this >>synchronized with other regions (see [1],[2]). Note: >>we may also extend the list of requestors to: >>Root DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, IANA, RIRs. >>Which I think is reasonable list. >>1. >><http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2>http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2 >> >>2. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#3-4-1 >>If there is at least some consensus, I am willing to >>write official policy change proposal. >>Ondrej >>-- >> Ondøej Surý >> technický øeditel/Chief Technical Officer >> ----------------------------------------- >> CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry >> Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic >> <mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz>mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ >> <mailto:sip%3Aondrej.sury@nic.cz>sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 >> mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 >> ----------------------------------------- >>

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
by Greg L. 17 Nov '08

17 Nov '08

Thanks for your fast reply. To be honest, I haven't seen multiple /24 IPv4 prefixes allocated (legally) to a single entity in Arin region just for DNS BGP Anycast service. In Ripe region you can't get /24 prefix allocated for DNS BGP anycast hosting if you are a normal business (like a DNS service provider who just wants to compete in this business crowd) unless you are gTLD or ccTLD. In Arin region you can get ONE /24 prefix for this purpose... This is why I am harsh with my comments to gTLD and ccTLD owners who now want more than one /24 prefix for DNS hosting in Ripe region... Sorry... Thanks! Greg http://www.linuxadmin.org/ At 19:54 2008.11.17., you wrote: >Greg, 2008/11/17 Greg L. <bgp2(a)linuxadmin.org>: > Current IPv4 already >provides more advantage to ccTLD and gTLD with IPv4 /24 > prefix >allocations for BGP anycast than for other business entities that > would >like to get /24 prefix for BGP anycast DNS deployments. It does not >provide 'more advantage", RIPE policy provides just 'exactly ONE /24 IPv4 >prefix and exactly ONE /48 IPv6 prefix' and it's not enough if you want to >provide reliable infrastructure for TLD. > I don't see a reason why more >resources should be allocated to a specific > group/entities named under >"Critical infrastructure" category that still > compete with businesses >that are unable to get /24 BGP anycast assignment > for DNS solutions from >Ripe. This is not fair (it was a bit fair when gTLD > and ccTLD started >out 5+ years ago). All these other businesses relies on services provided >by ccTLD/gTLD, that's why. ccTLD/gTLD operation is almost as important as >root servers operations. Certainly there are some categories of TLDs >according to number of registered domains, but I would like to avoid a >discussion about how much domain you need to have registered to be allowed >to have /24 anycast prefix. Other reason could be that this would align >RIPE policy with other RIRs policies. > This is why many European >companies prefer Arin's IP space. Welcome to Arin! I am no ARIN policy >expert, but from what I remember there is no special policy for other >businesses in ARIN policy. But there is a special policy for 'critical >infrastructure' and TLD DNS operators is already using that. Now that's >unfair, we are basically punished for being in RIPE region, since you can >get more anycast prefixes from all other RIRs. And please note that most >of European TLDs are unable to move to other regions because of legal >stuff. It's much easier to get legal status in US if you are private >owned then if you are not-for-profit. Ondrej. -- OndÅej SurÃ½ technickÃ½ >Åeditel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- >CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry AmerickÃ¡ 23,120 00 Praha >2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ >sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 >mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 >-----------------------------------------

3 2

Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
by Ondřej Surý 17 Nov '08

17 Nov '08

Hello everybody, I would like to post unformal proposal before writing official policy modification proposal (and/or having discussion tomorrow on Open Hour). We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modified to allow /24 *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* to gTLD/ccTLD. First reason behind this is that one PI is not really enough and it's blocking us to deploy more DNS servers and make our TLD service more reliable. Second reason is that if we deploy more Anycasted DNS servers we could keep (or drop down) number of NS records for TLD, so we could manage to keep DNS reply size low even with DNSSEC. And last, but not least, it would be good to keep this synchronized with other regions (see [1],[2]). Note: we may also extend the list of requestors to: Root DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, IANA, RIRs. Which I think is reasonable list. 1. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2 2. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#3-4-1 If there is at least some consensus, I am willing to write official policy change proposal. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------

6 9

2007-08 Last Call for Comments (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Ana Matic 10 Nov '08

10 Nov '08

PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2007-08 (version 4.0) is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 08 December 2008. Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC

1 0

Policy proposal 2007-08 will go to Last Call
by Sander Steffann 10 Nov '08

10 Nov '08

The RIPE Address Policy Working Group chairs have decided to move policy proposal 2007-08 to Last Call. This policy proposal has been discussed on the mailing list since 23 October 2007. Version 2 of this proposal was published on 18 March 2008, and version 3 has been published on 18 September 2008. In the last review phase version 3 of this proposal was discussed. Each version used the feedback on the previous version from the community. Most of the objections to version 2 of the proposal have been handled in version 3. There were three remaining objections after version 3 was published: 1) This policy will give IPv4 addresses financial value This subject has been discussed on the mailing list. The feeling was that IPv4 addresses already have financial value, but there was no proof for this. Remco van Mook has demonstrated that there are organizations that will pay money for IPv4 addresses, which proves that the financial value already exists. 2) There will be no market for IPv4 address In the same presentation Remco van Mook has shown that there are currently both sellers and buyers for IPv4 addresses, which proves the existence of such a market. 3) Reclaim/reuse is more efficient than transfering Alex Le Heux from RIPE NCC has provided statistics on the amount of IPv4 addresses that have been reclaimed. These statistics show that the amount of addresses that are effectively reclaimed (instead of returned to the NCC in exchange for a bigger allocation) is negligible. The current version of this proposal is version 4, which only has a minor change to close a potential loophole in version 3: "An LIR may only receive a transferred allocation after their need is evaluated by the RIPE NCC" is changed to "An LIR may only receive a transferred allocation after their need is evaluated and approved by the RIPE NCC". Because the change is so small, we have chosen not to go to the Review phase again. Because all objections to this proposal have been handled and because of the strong support that has been shown we feel confident that we can declare consensus and move this proposal to Last Call. Sander Steffann Address Policy Working Group co-chair

1 0

Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
by Krzysztof Olesik 04 Nov '08

04 Nov '08

Hello, > We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modified > to allow /24 *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* to > gTLD/ccTLD. > > First reason behind this is that one PI is not really > enough and it's blocking us to deploy more DNS servers > and make our TLD service more reliable. > > Second reason is that if we deploy more Anycasted DNS > servers we could keep (or drop down) number of NS records > for TLD, so we could manage to keep DNS reply size low > even with DNSSEC. As for .pl, we support the idea. In the future we would like to have another anycast cloud run in co-operation with other ccTLD. Best regards, Krzysztof Olesik NASK

1 0

2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Oct '08

28 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2008-06 Use of final /8 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/2008-06.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 12 November 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

10 10

2008-07 New Policy Proposal (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Oct '08

28 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2008-07 Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources 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/2008-07.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 12 November 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

3 2

2008-09 New Policy Proposal (ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs)
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Oct '08

28 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2008-09 ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs 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/2008-09.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 17 November 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

21 28

New version of 2006-1 IPv6 PI Policy Proposal
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 27 Oct '08

27 Oct '08

Hi all, According to the discussion in the list and the inputs received in the afternoon presentation, here is the draft text which is being also officially submitted to the WG chairs. As usual, inputs are welcome ! Regards, Jordi RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-01 - v4.0 Summary of Proposal: This policy is intended to provide a solution for organisations that need IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) assignments. Typically, such organisations will require the PI assignment to become Multihomed as happens for IPv4, but there may be other reason behind requests. This policy proposal is only trying to cover this type of PI assignments (for example data centers which are not an ISP, or content providers). Draft Policy Text: Qualification for an IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment: To qualify for a direct assignment, the End User must have a contract with a sponsoring LIR or a direct contract with the RIPE NCC, as detailed in the policy proposal 2007-01. The PI assignment can¹t be further assigned to other organisations. PI IPv6 Assignment Size to End User Organisations: The minimum size of the assignment is /48. However, a larger assignment (shorter prefix) can be provided if duly documented and justified. Subsequent Assignment Size to End User Organisations: Whenever possible, further assignments will be made from adjacent address blocks, but only if duly documented and justified. Assignment 'Super Block': Assignments will be allocated from a separate 'super block' to facilitate filtering practices. Rationale: a. Arguments Supporting the Proposal In IPv4, there are organisations that qualify for a PI allocation, or that could opt to become an LIR. This may be because they need either to be Multihomed or have other administrative or technical reasons for needing a portable addressing block. This is currently not the case for IPv6, and is perceived as a clear barrier for deployment of IPv6 in some organisations. This policy proposal addresses that barrier by means of providing a direct assignment from the RIPE NCC. Any organisation receiving such an assignment would not be allowed to make further assignments to other external organisations, but instead only to assign subnets internally within their own facilities. The RIPE NCC can¹t force routing decision on people, but the RIPE NCC can help people making educated choices about their routing filters by assigning IPv6 PI /48s from a well-documented super block¹. Experience from other regions shows that routing of /48s that are clearly marked as direct assignments¹ works well. By setting up this policy, we would avoid creating an unfair situation among different regions, and meet the needs of any organisation that required PI address space. All organisations that opt for this PI, will be in an equal position once the community agrees a long-term technical solution and will have to either move to this new solution or become an LIR, if they qualify. Newcomers will also be in the same position. Some organisations will not opt for PI under this policy because they do not need it. This would avoid placing them in an unfair situation. b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal The possible effect of this proposal is a growth of global routing tables to levels that, together with the existing and forecast IPv4 routing entries, could create significant issues for operators unless vendors can provide products that address such issues. Even if such technical solutions were found, the proposal could still have a major impact on the cost and/or depreciation period for infrastructure investments. It is expected that organisations requesting an IPv6 PI prefix under this policy, which may need in the future a standard PA block, will apply for that according to existing policies and will need to renumber. ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

2 1

Some observations on the differences in the various transfer policy proposals
by Geoff Huston 24 Oct '08

24 Oct '08

Hi, At the ARIN meeting last week the question arose as to why the various policy proposals related to address transfers in the different RIRs were so different. I made some comments in response to this question from my perspective and then I had some followup questions mailed to me, so I thought maybe there is some value in writing my perspective up. If you are interested its at: http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2008-11/transfers.html thanks, Geoff Huston DIsclaimer: I'm speaking for myself, again!

2 2

Suggestion: charging for IPv4 space
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond 23 Oct '08

23 Oct '08

All: Although I am not representing any registry and although this is my first post here, I have been reading through the archives of address-policy-wg and found a lot of the "usual suspects". This is not criticism, on the contrary, I think it's great that people are taking part in the discussions in each part of the world, but I do apologise to those who have already read my proposal below. I am sending here, in the hope that there might be some who haven't read it yet & who might wish to comment. Indeed, I am consulting each RIR discussion list separately, because I feel there might be local & cultural issues specific to each region. I might be wrong. Please don't shoot me. For one, I see the discussion about Millions of IP addresses lying idle having made it here as well & similar feedback wrt to it being flawed. However, I have also seen a lot about IPv4 address re-allocation but very little about IPv6 migration. So... Through discussions I've had with dozens of people (some of whom are reading this message), I have noticed the following: - currently, neither IPv4 nor IPv6 address delegation are directly linked to any kind of significant recurent *annual* fee; - some ISPs are considering introducing IPv6 connectivity to customers *for a premium* rather than IPv4 (yes, sadly, it's true); - we've had 10+ years of slogan "we are running out of IPv4 addresses" and this has not "hit the spot" to get a transitional process going; - sadly, there is a lack of IPv6 "killer ap" to promote the use of IPv6 over IPv4; - availability of several IPv6 "islands" exist on the Internet, with very poor "trans-island" connectivity (although I am told that this is s-l-o-w-l-y improving - and that's good news); - a lot of stigmas are associated with IPv6 (our customers do not request it; there is no demand; etc.) Clearly, we could all go on talking for another 10 years about IPv6. But we don't have 10 years. So what's the hurdle? Let's be fair, folks, it all boils down to a question of *money*. v4 to v6 transition is seen as an expensive exercise. Darn, with hardware, software & training, transition is expensive! Had it been cheap, we wouldn't be in the *utter mess* that we are in today because it would have been a natural thing to do. So we are going to run out of "greenfield IPv4" addresses by, say, 25 Dec 2010. Or earlier. Or later. Whatever. What we know is that we'll run out. <Boom>. IPv4 addresses will become a limited commodity. Speculators are going to step in, and they are likely to do it at a shockingly fast speed. (eg. Cantel & Siegel's Green Card Lottery announced mass spamming; the sex.com case announced the worth of domain names). My suggestion (and others have already touched on the idea) is therefore to engage a study of the following "positive discrimination" proposal: 1. Introducing a *recurrent annual* cost-element to IPv4 addresses, the reason behind it being: making v6 cheaper to run than v4. This could be a small cost to start with, increasing significantly but steadily along a scale for the next few years. This should act more as a *deterrent* for the use of IPv4 in the future than as a "tax" to be paid now. Heck, it might even start cleaning up IPv4 space and giving us more time to transit to v6 through the release of more IPv4 space! Those effects are hard to predict. 2. Building a v4 to v6 neutral & non-for-profit transition fund from the IPv4 revenue. This fund could finance/subsidise the following: a. the initial bridging of the IPv6 islands until those would be able to fly commercially b. IPv6 tech training c. any other project that would trigger/help v4 to v6 transition If we do not make IPv6 more interesting financially, we risk failure to transit smoothly. This will cause a *much greater problem* than Domain speculation since IP addressing constitutes the very fabric of the Internet: 1. Panic in operators who might then try and grab as much v4 space as possible, thus compounding the problem; 2. Panic transition from v4 to v6 which will completely forego the transition testing period which Peter Kirstein (UCL London) has mentioned many times, thus introducing instability in the Internet; 3. A lack of fully qualified technicians & engineers to run IPv6 networks; 4. A "free" market for IPv4 addresses where prices quickly spiral out of control. I am trying to look for a solution which will ease the shock by instead smoothly raising prices. A totally unregulated increase is to be feared. The rate of increase might have a greater impact than the price itself - see oil prices if you're not convinced: we can "survive" with oil at $140 a barrel, but we are hurt by the price going quickly from $70 a barrel to $140. It messes the world's economy up because it changes the balance at once in all of our business models. I don't believe in self-regulation by the market - it opens itself to serious abuse, in the same way Wall Street bankers abused the system and look where this led us? IPv4 is a *serious* show-stopper wrt the Internet's future development. The Internet we are seeing today is still primarily accessed by computers but tomorrow, and tomorrow isn't far away, we're going to see increased use by mobile devices. There are also now several commercial products out there to access your home PC remotely. Next on the tab is the concept of having a home multimedia server that can be accessed remotely. And then we fall into consumer electronics - new TVs are now all digital-enabled & the rest of the "home entertainment" system is quickly becoming all digital. The "young generations" do not know CDs - their music travels on digital music players & laptops. And then comes the "Network of things" where sensors will talk to each other. This is just about to hit us, and our dinosaur IPv4 will be as suited to this as the steam engine is to the modern hydrid car. IPv6 will enable us to have cheap devices all connected to the Internet. With instability creeping in the system, we risk several high profile technical failures with repercussions not dissimilar to the current failures in the banking sector. Do we really want this? I shall be going to the ICANN Cairo conference and would be happy to discuss these matters in person. Come on, let's do something about this impending doom. I've lived the DOTCOM boom years and met with teenagers who told me they were going to conquer the world - *and they did*. IPv6 has the ability to infuse a breath of life in Internetting & the Internet Economy worldwide - on every continent. Seize the day. Don't wait until someone tells you that you've failed. Sorry for the length of the message & thanks for reading, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D. E-mail:<ocl(a)gih.com> | http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

3 4

2007-08 Review Period extended until 4 November 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Ana Matic 22 Oct '08

22 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2007-08 has been extended until 4 November 2008. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net. Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC

1 0

2007-01 Proposal Accepted (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by Filiz Yilmaz 22 Oct '08

22 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2007-01 Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2007-01 has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html Information regarding the implementation of the proposal at the RIPE NCC will follow. Thank you for your input. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

DRAFT agenda for RIPE address policy WG in Dubai
by Gert Doering 22 Oct '08

22 Oct '08

Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Dubai in the following 4(!) time slots: Monday, Oct 27, 16:00-18:00 Tuesday, Oct 28, 09:00-10:30 and 11:00-12:30 Wednesday, Oct 29, 09:00-10:30 Since the APWG sessions at the last RIPE meetings had to be a bit rushed, we have been given plenty of time on this meeting to discuss ongoing policy changes and new ideas that might come up in detail. The exact time lines depend a bit on how much discussion is going on, so we might need to move items one time slot "up" or "down". If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or of we need to change anything, please let us know. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Monday, 16:00-18:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, selecting a scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. Overview over concluded protocols 15 min 2007-09 Cooperative Distribution of the End of the IPv4 Free Pool - withdrawn 2008-01 Assinging IPv6 PI to every INETNUM holder - withdrawn 2008-02 Assigning IPv6 PA to every LIR - withdrawn 2008-03 Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space (N=1) - Accepted [short update from the NRO NC on the global status] 2007-01 Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC (the "contract framework" proposal) [assuming it will pass WG chairs last call until then] C. Current Policy Topics - Filiz Yilmaz [30 min] D. New Proposals since RIPE 56 overview about what's coming [10 min] E. Discussion of open policy proposals, grouped by similarity of topic --- PI and special-case address space related --- 2008-05 Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM [20 min] Presentation by Ian Meikle (5-10 min) discussion 2006-01 Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End User... [20 min] 2006-05 PI Assignment Size [20 min] 2007-05 ULA-Central [5 min] (Waiting for IETF to pick up ULA-Central, which does not seem to be happening, so the chairs suggest to withdraw this proposal) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tuesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back, and continuation of the "PI and special-case" topics [5 min] <informal> "IPv6 Resources for RIPE meetings" presentation by Andrei Robachevsky + discussion [20 min] --- end of IPv4 session (1) --- Presentation by Tom Vest [30 min] "Running on Empty: The Challenge of managing Internet addresses" (http://tprcweb.com/files/Lehr%20Vest%20Lear%20Internet%20Address%20TPRC%208…) 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources [30-45 min] (the "market" proposal) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tuesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- end of IPv4 session (2) --- 2008-06 Phil Smith (1) - Usage of final /8 [25 min] (see also http://www.apnic.net/policy/discussions/prop-062-v002.txt) 2008-07 Phil Smith (2) - Efficienct use of historical IPv4 res. [25 min] (see also http://www.apnic.net/policy/discussions/prop-066-v004.txt) --- cross-WG material --- 2008-08 Initial Certification Policy for PA Space Holders [15 min?] CA-TF, presentation by Nigel Titley, + Discussion 2008-?? James Spenceley - "on the format of 4-byte AS numbers" [20 min] (presentation + discussion, touching DB WG and routing WG) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-11:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- F. Open Policy Hour "The Open Policy Hour (OPH) is a showcase for your policy ideas. If you have a policy proposal you'd like to debut, prior to formally submitting it, here is your opportunity." (Idea from ARIN policy meeting) F1 Daniel Karrenberg [15 min] G. RIPE policy document reworking/rewording project at the RIPE NCC - short presentation - feedback from the WG "is this a good idea?" H. RIPE policy process - more participation! - "do we need/want RIPE member polls"? - other ideas? I. RIPE policy development process - deadlines? - cut-off time for new proposals before upcoming RIPE meetings? - problem statement & getting feedback from the WG Z. AOB -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 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

2 1

2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Filiz Yilmaz 20 Oct '08

20 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2007-08 has been revised based on the community feedback. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today. As a result a new Review Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html and the draft RIPE Document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft2007-08-v3.html We encourage you to read the revised proposal and the draft document, and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 16 October 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

28 67

Millions of Internet Addresses Are Lying Idle
by Jeffrey A. Williams 17 Oct '08

17 Oct '08

All, Seems that all the hub bub regarding IPv4 address space being very limited is really not so. As I and others have advocated for years, reclaiming unused IPv4 space is needed. See: The most comprehensive scan of the entire internet for several decades http://www.technologyreview.com/web/21528/ shows that millions of allocated addresses simply aren't being used. Professor John Heidemann from the University of Southern California (USC) used ICMP and TCP to scan the internet. Even though the last IPv4 addresses will be handed out in a couple of years, his survey reveals that many of the addresses allocated to big companies and institutions are lying idle. Heidemann says: 'People are very concerned that the IPv4 address space is very close to being exhausted. Our data suggests that maybe there are better things we should be doing in managing the IPv4 address space.' So, is it time to reclaim those unused addresses before the IPv6 crunch?" Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

6 9

2008-08 New Policy Proposal (Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders)
by Filiz Yilmaz 16 Oct '08

16 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2008-08 Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders 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/2008-08.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 13 November 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

ETNO Contribution on IP Addressing in a Post IPv4 World Reallocation of resources
by Kelaidi Christina 16 Oct '08

16 Oct '08

Dear colleagues I am forwarding ETNO Position on the RIPE 2007-08 Policy Proposal. ETNO supports this Policy Proposal, but requests for a clarification to be included. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues (NANI) WG Chairperson ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- ETNO has considered the new version of the RIPE 2007-08 Policy Proposal Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources, submitted for discussion in the RIPE Address Policy Working Group mailing list. ETNO believes this revised version that provides for additional criteria to demonstrate the need for an LIR to receive IPv4 addresses trough transfer, is significantly improved. Therefore ETNO will support this Policy Proposal. Still there are outstanding considerations regarding the extent and effect of this proposal that should be addressed by the community. 1. Introduction ETNO members have carefully reviewed the new version of the RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-08 related to the "Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources", which proposes to use inter-LIR transfer mechanisms. This new version of the proposal has been examined in light of the principles expressed in the two previous ETNO position papers circulated in the RIPE Address Policy Working Group mailing list (CP082 - 2007/10, and EC097 2008/05 publicly available also at www.etno.be, Position Papers 2007/2008). ETNO welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on this new version. 2. ETNO analysis and comments The major change between Version 2 and Version 3 of the policy proposal is the requirement for the receiving LIR to have their need evaluated by the RIPE-NCC before a transfer can be completed. ETNO believes that this requirement is necessary in order to avoid speculative behaviours. Based on the above ETNO will support RIPE 2007-08 "Policy Proposal Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources", but would like to propose for a clarification to be included in the proposal. ETNO suggests that following the text of the proposal: "An LIR may only receive a transferred allocation after their need is evaluated by the RIPE NCC", the following text should be inserted: "The transfer should be formally approved by the RIPE-NCC". 3. Outstanding considerations ETNO has outstanding considerations regarding the extent and effect of this proposal that should be addressed by the community. It should be mentioned that these considerations do not impact the approval of the current policy proposal. 1. ETNO believes that reclamation by the RIRs of allocated but unused addresses can offer a way to reuse IPv4 blocks of addresses. In the future, what impact will this new policy have on any reclamation activity? Is it possible to reconcile the reclamation activity from historic, legacy space and the procedures for inter-LIR transfer? 2. Since the significant volume of allocated but unused addresses resides in the historic, legacy space and these addresses are generally not maintained by Local Internet Registries, what will be the impact of this policy proposal? In the future will it be a requirement that the donor be an LIR even in the situation where legacy space is being transferred? Such a requirement could be counter productive to reintroduce unused legacy space in the RIR/LIR management. 3. Given the limited scope of the policy, does this proposal have a significant impact on the availability of additional IPv4 addresses prior to exhaustion of the pools of "fresh" IPv4 addresses from IANA? 4. Conclusion ETNO is positive to any flexibility that could provide a limited amount of IPv4 addresses, and can help the transition to IPv6, but believes that this will not solve the broad issue if IPv4 exhaust and should not distract ISPs and operators from finding appropriate and long term solutions to maintaining a stable Internet. Based on the above ETNO will support RIPE 2007-08 "Policy Proposal Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources", but has requested for a clarification to be included.

2 1

Paul Krugman on bad equilibriums
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 16 Oct '08

16 Oct '08

I've just been reading a paper by Paul Krugman who recently won the Economics Prize in memory of Alfred Nobel. The paper is entitled "Supply, Demand, and English Food" but I think it explains what has gone wrong with IPv6 some 10 years after it was developed. Here's a relevant quotation: But the history of English food suggests that even on so basic a matter as eating, a free-market economy can get trapped for an extended period in a bad equilibrium in which good things are not demanded because they have never been supplied, and are not supplied because not enough people demand them. --Michael Dillon

2 1

2008-05 Discussion Phase extended until 12 November 2008 (Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM)
by Filiz Yilmaz 15 Oct '08

15 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2008-05 Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM Dear Colleagues, The Discussion Phase for the proposal 2008-05 has been extended until 12 November 2008. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-05.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0