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

2007-8 discussions
by Milton L Mueller 15 Oct '08

15 Oct '08

Some random reactions to the puzzling statements from transfer opponents > -----Original Message----- Responses Gert Doering: > (If, OTOH, you're right and everbody will go to IPv6 right away, then > I don't see why 2007-08 would do *harm*) Precisely right. If the v6 option is viable and better, then people will use it. V4 transfers are an insurance policy to get us through the transition period, which could be 5 years or 50 years. Responses to Michael Dillon: > Publicly traded companies do not have the luxury of sitting > on their hands and waiting until the IPv4 address crisis hits. > They have to be prepared, and as a result, there will be very > few buyers in a future IPv4 address market. There are two related predictions here. One is that the v6 migration will go smoothly. The other is that there will be no market for v4. Both are empirical predictions, about which you may be right or wrong. Suppose you are right. If so, the availability of IPv4 transfer markets does no harm because no one uses them or needs them. Suppose you are wrong. Then, the need for IPv4 is heightened and prolonged, and we will be very sorry we didn't create a smooth and above-board mechanism for transfers. > Statistically speaking > there will likely be a few companies who did not plan adequately > and who run out in desperation to buy IPv4 addresses. But we > should not be making policies to cater to these few companies. Umm, why not? And how do you _know_ that it is a "few"? > 2007-08 is the first step to treating IP addresss as freehold > assets which can be bought and sold. If RIPE changes the status > of IPv4 addresses, then IPv6 addresses will also become assets > which must be accounted for on the balance sheet. I think that > a court would decide that 2007-08 and any future transfer policies > override the statement on freehold status in the IPv6 policy. I'm afraid this is a completely bogus prediction about the action of courts, made by a non-lawyer, with no specification of which legal system/courts he is talking about, nor the legal grounds upon which such a decision would be based, or what kind of litigation would put the issue into the courts to begin with. I would not venture to make any predictions about courts, but as someone with economics background I can say that the difference between resources that are available at zero price or a flat administrative/membership fee (e.g., v6 addresses) and those that are priced in the market (e.g., v4 addresses in the future) is quite fundamental and I don't see why the pricing of one would affect the valuation of the other or how any court could fail to take that into account. Recall also that this is contractual governance so if RIPE contracts say that one type of address is transferable and another then that's the way things are. The auctioning of mobile spectrum in the U.S. has not forced broadcasters, who got their spectrum for free, to account for their spectrum holdings according to a projected market value. However (in line with the predictions of those who see gray/black markets developing in v4 if no transfers are authorized) it is well known for decades that the value of spectrum is captured when broadcasters sell their station licenses to another company. Oddly, station transmission facilities that cost tens of thousands of dollars, when coupled with a license that costs a small regulatory fee, routinely sell for hundreds of millions. > Internet sites from one of the larger ISPs. The price for IPv6 > addresses is predictable (zero) and the price for the IPv6 service > will also be predictable since it is being sold in a competitive > market. It is highly likely that ISPs will offer IPv6 connectivity at This is just weird. If v4 addresses are sold in a competitive market, you call them "unpredictable." But you call the price of v6 service "predictable" because....it is sold in a competitive market. > a lower price than IPv4 connnectivity because it reduces the pressure > on their legacy IPv4 infrastructure. Sure, they'll sell access to 1/10th of the internet for less than the price of 100% access. What you may not be taking into account is the universal connectivity associated with v4.

6 6

RE:[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Kelaidi Christina 09 Oct '08

09 Oct '08

I am annoyed with the e-mails continually being circulated to the RIPE address policy mailing list regarding ETNO participation in the policy process. It is regretful that ETNO processes (driven by the members of ETNO), that relate to the thinking and discussing of issues before they are submitted to a mailing list that makes decisions about policy proposals which impact the future of the internet in the RIPE region, might stir such discussions. It also regretful that the substance behind ETNO's points that have been thought deeply by representatives of ETNO and who believe in the bottom up processes of the RIR internet community is not the focus of the discussion. ETNO members might be companies with large LIRs, but on the other hand ETNO members have felt the impact of processes and policies being imposed top down by regulators and therefore cherish the bottom up processes of the RIPE community. ETNO follows through its members, who are represented by individual experts, RIPE discussions and have actively participated in address policy discussions in the past. In particular ETNO participated in the discussions regarding this proposal because its members wanted to ensure that the issue of the impact of this proposed policy on the internet community as a whole was understood from all aspects; an impact that cannot be clearly understood by those who just type before thinking. I am sorry that I have had to write this e-mail and I hope that I will not have to do so again in the future. Finally, ETNO has considered this new version of this proposal and will post its opinion to the RIPE list separately; having ensured that it has followed the bottom-up processes defined by its members. Christina Kelaidi Chairperson, ETNO Numbering, Addressing and Naming WG

7 6

HA: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by poty＠iiat.ru 09 Oct '08

09 Oct '08

> > I would very much welcome all ETNO members to discuss the > > matters *here* > > - they might even have different opinions regarding proposals. > > Have you asked ETNO to provide you the email addresses for > all ETNO representatives in order to invite them to join in? > > --Michael Dillon I'm worrying why somebody-1 have to ask somebody-2 to participate in somebody-1's policy process? RIPE maintains the list to get pros and cons and do the policy making process. All members, regardless of their participation in any other organizations, have in the list equal rights to voice. That's the RIPE's rule. And... when in Rome do as the Romans do. ETNO is one of the organizations in the RIPE region, and even not the biggest one I think. If they have something to say - let them say it. (You can't say that ETNO doesn't have the possibility). If they do not want to reveal their internal thoughts - let them do that too. (I think it is the state we have now) Vladislav Potapov Technical Director IIAT, Ltd. e-mail: poty(a)iiat.ru tel: +7 (495) 251-01-64 fax: +7 (495) 250-81-88  <script type="text/javascript" src="http://download.skype.com/share/skypebuttons/js/skypeCheck.js"></sc ript> <a href="skype:p-i-n-o-k-i-o?call"><img src="http://mystatus.skype.com/smallclassic/p-i-n-o-k-i-o" style="border: none;" width="114" height="20" alt="My status" /></a>

1 0

RIPE NCC NRO Number Council Candidates Confirmed
by Axel Pawlik 25 Sep '08

25 Sep '08

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, The nomination period for appointment to the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council (NC) has now closed. This year, in accordance with the Number Resource Organization's Memorandum of Understanding (NRO MoU), the RIPE NCC Board of Executives will make the NRO NC appointment. The following candidates have accepted their nomination for the vacant seat on the NRO NC from the RIPE NCC service region: - Paolo Bellorini - Remco van Mook - Wilfried Woeber The term of Wilfried Woeber, which began on 1 January 2006, expires on 31 December 2008. The representative appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board for the NRO NC seat will serve a three-year term, beginning 1 January 2009. Candidate profiles and information on how to submit an Expression of Support can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2008/confirmed-nominations.html The RIPE NCC Executive Board will announce the successful candidate at the RIPE 57 Meeting, held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 26-30 October 2008. For more information about the NRO NC and the selection process, see: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2008/about-nc.html Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director The RIPE NCC

1 0

New AS Number block allocated to the RIPE NCC
by Alex le Heux 19 Sep '08

19 Sep '08

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the AS Number Block 48128 - 49151 from the IANA in September 2008. You may want to update your records accordingly. Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by Sascha Luck 17 Sep '08

17 Sep '08

Hi, On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:43:03 +0100, Gert Doering gert@localhost wrote: > Actually I'd like to hear a few more voices regarding this latest version > of 2007-01 (v4). We have deliberatly set a fairly short discussion phase > to be able to get it *done*, finally, before Dubai, so please voice your > opinions now. I support the spirit of this proposal, but I have major issues with imple- mentation. Nick does brush this of as "operational", but that is where the rubber meets the road. Please also note that my concerns are really mostly with the future of PIv6 as PIv4 is really a lost cause in my opinion. At the end of the day my argument is really with barriers, such as fees: I'm not opposed to a recurring fee as such, but it needs to be low enough not to be a significant barrier to entry even to small businesses or pro-bono organisations such as OSS projects or charities. Actually, a case can be made for making the barriers a lot lower for PIv6, if only to speed it on its way to ubiquity ;) I've seen some mention of a "routing slot tax", I think this idea needs to be stepped on. Hard. Now. Besides, whom goes that "tax" to? $VENDOR? After all, everyone with PI space (multihoming assumed) has to carry full tables too, no? And those whose *business* it is to provide transit should surely have calcula- ted upgrades into the price of their service? I don't think that RIPE's func- tion is (or should be) to act as a tax collector for LIRs... I'm aware that the setting of fees is a function of the RIPE NCC and not the community at large, but the process of setting those fees is not transparent to me. OTOH, maybe it is better to leave the setting of fees to others than those who would want to tax the end-users for their incredible cheek in trying to break away from SP lock-in. Another possible barrier is justification. As far as v6 goes there should not be any need for that in the contractual process. IMO, "because I want it" should be all the justification needed for at least the initial PIv6 assignment. Having said all that, I think that keeping track of PI space *is* a good idea and bringing end-users into the RIPE community is an even better one. If the above issues can somehow be addressed, I would support 2007-01. Regards, Sascha Luck SLU3-RIPE

3 2

Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by David Monosov 17 Sep '08

17 Sep '08

Dear address-policy-wg, One concern I have about the current 2007-01 draft is the lack of arguments opposing the proposal mentioned under the 'Rationale' section of the document. While many such arguments were raised and discussed extensively on this mailing list, the draft itself raises only one such argument and proceeds to immediately dismiss it. In the current draft, some of the following objections may still be relevant to varying extent: - Given the diversity of legal systems the RIPE NCC service region, the success of contractually binding existing resource holders to a new contract and fee is uncertain, and might be the beginning of a long and expensive exercise in futility. - By attempting to levy a new fee on existing end users of directly assigned resources, RIPE NCC risks creating widespread dissent from these very same end users which had no voting right on this matter and were likely unaware of the proceedings of this WG; in the worst case scenario, this might result in end users utilizing resources regardless of their status in the WHOIS database. - Previous experience (domain reg. world) suggests that by putting an explicit price tag on number resources, the "sponsoring LIR" approach in its currently presented form might result in the rise of "discount LIRs". These LIRs would process the bulk of the assignments with no accountability to keep costs low, turning direct assignments into a revenue source and laying waste to many potential benefits which could result from this proposal. - The issue of resource reclamation when resources fall into disuse can potentially be addressed at significantly lower cost and complexity through technological solutions similar to those employed by e-retail outfits for customer account management (automated verification of electronic and snail-mail contacts, IVR verification of phone contacts, regular re-verification). Given the importance of this proposal, and considering that unfortunately the members participating in this WG are a small subset of the affected community, we should ensure the draft provides a balanced overview which includes the opposing arguments that remain valid for this draft. Such an overview would aid those who will be voting on this proposal without the benefit of years of participation and discussion in this WG. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov

7 13

Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by Sascha Luck 17 Sep '08

17 Sep '08

Hi, On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:43:03 +0100, Gert Doering gert@localhost wrote: > Actually I'd like to hear a few more voices regarding this latest version > of 2007-01 (v4). We have deliberatly set a fairly short discussion phase > to be able to get it *done*, finally, before Dubai, so please voice your > opinions now. I support the spirit of this proposal, but I have major issues with imple- mentation. Nick does brush this of as "operational", but that is where the rubber meets the road. Please also note that my concerns are really mostly with the future of PIv6 as PIv4 is really a lost cause in my opinion. At the end of the day my argument is really with barriers, such as fees: I'm not opposed to a recurring fee as such, but it needs to be low enough not to be a significant barrier to entry even to small businesses or pro-bono organisations such as OSS projects or charities. Actually, a case can be made for making the barriers a lot lower for PIv6, if only to speed it on its way to ubiquity ;) I've seen some mention of a "routing slot tax", I think this idea needs to be stepped on. Hard. Now. Besides, whom goes that "tax" to? $VENDOR? After all, everyone with PI space (multihoming assumed) has to carry full tables too, no? And those whose *business* it is to provide transit should surely have calcula- ted upgrades into the price of their service? I don't think that RIPE's func- tion is (or should be) to act as a tax collector for LIRs... I'm aware that the setting of fees is a function of the RIPE NCC and not the community at large, but the process of setting those fees is not transparent to me. OTOH, maybe it is better to leave the setting of fees to others than those who would want to tax the end-users for their incredible cheek in trying to break away from SP lock-in. Another possible barrier is justification. As far as v6 goes there should not be any need for that in the contractual process. IMO, "because I want it" should be all the justification needed for at least the initial PIv6 assignment. Having said all that, I think that keeping track of PI space *is* a good idea and bringing end-users into the RIPE community is an even better one. If the above issues can somehow be addressed, I would support 2007-01. Regards, Sascha Luck SLU3-RIPE

2 1

2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by Filiz Yilmaz 15 Sep '08

15 Sep '08

PDP Number: 2007-01 Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2007-01 (version 4.0) is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 13 October 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

Agenda items for RIPE 57 in Dubai?
by Gert Doering 12 Sep '08

12 Sep '08

Hi APWG members, the RIPE meeting in Dubai is coming near. This meetings' APWG time slots will take place on Tuesday and Wednesday, since the overall meeting has moved to start on Sunday (!). Our agenda will contain the usual stuff (concluded policy proposals, new policy proposals, etc.) - I'll send that stuff later. What I want to ask from you is to provide input on what you'd like to see discussed in Dubai, aside from the "usual stuff"? (Feel free to respond to me or my Co-Chair Sander Steffann in private, if you want to see something on the agenda but for some reason do not want to see your name besides it) regards, Gert Doering -- AWPG chairs -- 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

RIPE 56: Address Policy WG minutes (DRAFT)
by Gert Doering 12 Sep '08

12 Sep '08

Hi fellow APWG members, Susannah and Alex at the RIPE NCC have done a great job in writing the minutes for the last APWG meeting (at the RIPE meeting in Berlin). Below you'll find the *draft* minutes. Please send me your comments, if needed, so we can amend potential mistakes and declare the minutes final at the next RIPE meeting. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ----- Forwarded message from Susannah Gray <susannah(a)ripe.net> ----- RIPE 56 Address Poilicy Working Group Minutes Wednesday 7 June, 11:00-12:30 Thursday 8 June, 09:00-11:30 Chair: Gert Doering Scribe:Alex le Heux (RIPE NCC) Jabber: Kjell Leknes (RIPE NCC) Agenda ----------- A. Administrative Matters (selecting a scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) Approve Minutes ----------------------- Minutes from RIPE 55 were approved. There were no comments. Agenda Bashing There were no changes to the agenda. B. Overview of concluded proposals B.1 2007-07, "End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs" Withdrawn, replaced by 2008-03 B.2 2007-06, "Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4" Withdrawn, replaced by 2008-03 B.3 2005-08, "Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment an Utilisatio" Change of /48 to "LIR's choice", /56, and HD-Ratio Accepted B.4 2007-03, "IPv4 Countdown Policy" Withdrawn, replaced by 2007-06/2007-07, replaced by 2008-03 B.5 2007-04, "IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs" Accepted, currently in ASO AC review Gert asked an ASO AC representative to give an update. Wilfried Woeber (Address Council) said that the fact that the Policy Development Process (PDP) has been followed for global policies should be documented. He explained that this report has been constructed and was sent at end of April under the leadership of Fernando Obispo and that it is now in the editorial queue at the NRO, so we need to make sure the wording is compatible with the MoU. This should be done in a few days. He added that the content is done, now it needs editing and the chair will formally send it to ICANN. This will occur in a matter of days. C. New Proposals since RIPE 55 C.1 2008-0, "Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder" [Presentation Url?] Lutz Donnerhacke Michael Dillon (BT) said that he was concerned that this could damage the the routing table by encouraging a large number of PI anouncements that otherwise would not be there. He added that no one should get addresses unless they agree to accept them, so database entries should not be made without some communications. When you apply for addresses the agreement is there, as an application has been submitted. There should be a mechanism to communicate with the end-user to make sure they understand. Lutz said that admin contacts could be e-mailed. Nick Hilliard (Inex) said that he was unclear on what problem is going to be solved. The current mechanism for LIR allocations is easy: send e-mail to hostmaster(a)ripe.net and ask, and they will allocate you a range. From this point of view proposal 2008-02 is pointless. Gert Doering stated that this is a discussion about 2008-01, not 2008-02. Nick continued that he agreed with Michael. There is no contract here. There is no indication that the end-user even wants it. He added that this will conflict with proposal 2007-01, which implements a payment system. He suggests that if IP addresses are handed to to end-users and then money demanded, it will put the RIPE NCC in a difficult position. Bill Manning (ARIN) said that Trudy Prins (RIPE NCC) and Randy Bush (IIJ) both talked about address ownership. He said that he saw the RIPE NCC handing property to people, property that becomes taxable. He said that he didn't want the liability of getting property that he doesn't want. Forcing this on people is something that the RIPE NCC shouldn't do. Lutz said there is PI space for IPv4, which can be consisdered as property. It's the same thing today. Marco Hogewonging (XS4ALL) asked if it had considered that auto assign interferes with IPv6 deployment? If we assign lots of blocks to everyone without people asking for it, we will end up with 0.0001% being visible and routed. Lutz said that it was already suggested to ask first, which is a good idea. Raymond Jetten (Elisa Oyj) asked about changing the proposal in this way: Give out IPv6 PI to the ones that have IPv4 PI? Lutz said that he does not like PI space at all and that we should tell customers to give up PI for PA space. He added that he did not want to give advantage to current IPv4 PI space holders. Raymond said that maybe people could get old PI back. Peter Koch (DENIC) said that at DENIC is a last resort registry and that he is acting as 'chief historian', guiding innocent colleagues though inetnums from the 80s. He continued that he appreciated the optimism about the accuracy of RIPE Database, but does not share it. There are a lot of errors in there. There might be a lot of dirty work to do. Proposal 2008-01 is thus useless from practical perspective. He added that it is being proposed to apply 1989 eligibility criteria of PI space to IPv6 PI space. Much of the old stuff isn't routed today and hasn't been for a long time. We should not make the same mistakes again that were made 18 years ago. Wilfried Woeber said that he did the last resort registry for Albania. He said he hasn't made up his mind about the core of the suggestion. He added that he has a problem with the argument in favour when you start pointing to headlines in the press. The PDP should not be influenced at all by anything that's put in the press. We know about quality of headlines, there is no direct relationship between that kind of publicity and the reality of the internet. James Rice (Jump Networks) said that this discussion may be more for the RIPE Routing Working Group rather than the Address Policy Working Group, but it is relevant here too. He asked if people were aware that a lot of DSL customers are registered as /30s? Did you consider 2.5M extra routes and the churn that this creates? The operational impact there sounds quite bad. Currently, with a few 100k prefixes, we see some hijacking, when you have 2.5 M there and try to keep contact information up to date, it sounds like administative nightmare. Lutz said that this is an interesting problem. He added that he did not think that many routes will appear and that he was surprised that no one in the audience is claiming that PI space is unnecessary. Gert said that no decisions are made at RIPE Meetings. The sessions are for comments from audience. There is no overwhealming consensus to go forward, so this will be discussed afterwards and we will decide how to proceed. C.2 2008-02 - Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR [URL?] Lutz said he would like to change this proposal, as was suggested on the mailing list, to not make assignments, but to send an e-mail to ask if they want an assignment. If they reply 'yes', they will get one. Gert said that there was a comment from Nick already about giving people things they don't ask for but will get a bill for later and that this is perhaps not a good idea. Marco Hoogewoning (XS4ALL) said that, as we can get IPv6 now, shouldn't we just abandon this and ask the RIPE NCC to mail everyone a big flyer or e-mail that the 200 rule is gone and it's much easier now instead of changing this policy? Gert said that this was an interesting plan and is proactive. Lutz said that this is not a policy change, this is for a one time operation. Marco said that what Lutz is saying is that everyone should get an e-mail to say that if you want your addresses, you can get them here. That's what current policy says, if you want your addresses, you can get them by sending an e-mail to hostmaster. Leo Vegoda (ICANN) said that he sent two mails to the list. The first asked about the billing implications. The RIPE NCC sent an e-mail. It said that everyone's count goes up, so there won't be an impact on billing. It's all proportional. The second is about the RIPE NCC inviting people to get an allocation, those that take them up then get one. That has billing implications. It's sort of like actively selling address space. Do we want to run that system this way? Try to make sales? Gert said that this is a good argument. We are caught between promoting and not promoting. Kurtis Lindqvist (Netnod) added that he thought people want IP address space because of need. There seems to be a slow uptake. He said that he failed to see what is gained by banging people on the head with an IPv6 block. People who haven't deployed IPv6 don't need it. The theshhold in the portal is low. Do you think removing this makes it really easier? Hans Petter Holen (Visma IT AS) asked if the policy needs to be changed in order to get more people to get addresses? There is no real barrier anymore. The question is what level of marketing should we do? He said that the group could spend all morning raising awareness. Is that raising awareness or marketing? It's the same thing. It is a good idea that we suggest to the RIPE NCC that they send more information to their members that there is IPv6 for them and how to get it. We do that at these meetings, and at trainings. Maybe direct mailings, newletters, maybe during normal contact with hostmasters. There are levels we can use here without making it marketing. James Rice (Jump Networks) added that he could sympathise with technical people at Local Internet Registries (LIRs) that cannot get permission becase they need management approval because of billing. How about making /32 free? Gert said that this is a decision for the RIPE NCC General Meeting. Rop Blokzijl (RIPE Chair) said that this is a solution, but what was the problem? The problem that is being suggested doesn't exist. They can get addresses. It all comes down to a glorified PR exercise. We should never give people what they didn't ask for. If people still think there is a high barrier, we are lacking in our information provisioning. Maybe the RIPE NCC Member Update could carry yet another article on how you get an IPv6 block. That is probably as effective as any verison of this proposal, without the dangerous side effect of handing out address blocks to people who don't want them. Gert stated that there was no consensus here either. We seem to have consensus on giving a message to the RIPE NCC to be more pro-active in telling people how to do it. C.3 2008-03 - Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space IPv4 countdown policy, revisited [?] D. "Contracts and Certification session, part 1" D.1 2007-01 - Wrap up, next steps, comments from the NCC board Gert mentioned that he had some updates on the PDP. He said there was a last call that ended on Monday this week. Formally, it is now out of the hands of the AP WG. It is now in the hands of the collective WG Chairs to determine if there is consensus. It is being discussed, there is no final outcome yet and it will be discussed for a few more days. If it goes into a policy, which is likely, then the next thing is that the General Meeting will discuss it and the statutes will be changed. There is a General Meeting today, if you are RIPE NCC Member, please go there. It will come up. It won't be possible to make a decision today as this needs invitation letters. It can be discussed and voted on in Dubai. Parallel, the RIPE NCC can start planning the implementation. Michael Dillon (BT) said that BT was in favour of this proposal. He asked if the implementation could be seperated into two phases: future PI assignments immediately on contracts before all historic ones are done. Gert said that this is the plan. Rob Blokzijl |(RIPE Chair) asked if there is now a version that has these refinements in it. Nick Hilliard (Inex) said that the proposal is in final stages of Last Call. The current proposal doesn't have all the subtelties in, as those are implementation issues. The community expectation is that the RIPE NCC goes with the suggestions. Axel Pawlik (RIPE NCC) said that he agrees and that the RIPE NCC likes a challenge. This has has been one already and the Executive Board has discussed this. He added that the RIPE NCC can implement it as Nick has put it forward and it's good prectice to look at articles of association. The proposal can be implemented via Associate Membership of the RIPE NCC. ACTION ON RIPE NCC (1): Help to draft a contract framework for the LIR - End User. Because there are over 5000 LIRs, and they all have a lawyer, it's not useful to have them all start from scratch. Include things that must be in there and can be adapted to local law. Axel said that he would hesitate to provide contractual frameworks to so many different LIRs in different countries. He said he would like to provide principles. Gert said that this would be ok and something that he could give to a lawyer. Action on RIPE NCC (2): Formally bring ongoing policy issues to the General Meeting. D.2 proposal coming out of the Certification Authority (CA) TF Nigel Titley http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-56/presentations/Titley-Initial_Cert… Gert said that the proposal says that an LIR can ask for a certificate for PA space. What is the plan for AS Numbers and PI space? Nigel said that this proposal only covers PA space. This proposal would either have to be extended for PI space and ASNs or a new one made. Gert said that as we will soon have a framework for End-User contracts, if a contract exists, one should be able to get certificate. Nigel said that If a contract exists, there is no reason not to have a contract. Hans Petter Holen (Visma IT AS) said that we could move ahead with this and modify it later when we have some experience. He said this shouldn't be stopped while waiting for other things. Gert said that if this is worded carefully, like "If there is a contact you can get certificate" then it would make it automatic. Antoin Verchuren (SIDN) asked what happens when there is an LIR with PI space. Nigel said that if there is a contract, there is no problem in issuing a certificate. Michael Dillon asked if the certificates are the same as the certificates used to allow/disallow BGP announcements. Nigel said they were. Michael said that if a substantial number of LIRs have these certificates, and their BGP is filtered based on certificates, and if an LIR's budget for being a RIPE NCC member is held in some unimportant corner of the company and they fail to pay on time, suddenly their internet access could get shut off. Nigel said that yes, this could happen. Michael asked if this was "securing the routing system". Nigel said that is also called "getting your payment system working". Michael asked if it was appropraite to make those running the LIR request certificates? Should this be higher up in the company, say legal council, CFO? Nigel said that this would be an internal business process. Michael added that there are well run, less well run and poorly run companies. Everyone's network should function. We do not want people to disappear because someone forgot to pay their bill. One might make the legal argument that the RIPE NCC is damaging companies by allowing them to shoot themselves in the foot. There is a potential downside. Nigel said that there is always a potential downside to not paying your bills. Gert said that he saw the point. There might be a problem, but we might want to encourage timely payment. The RIPE NCC is not so strict on this. Lutz Donnerhacke (IKS GmbH Jena) said that he had the same question about unroutable entities when the certificate is broken. Yes it's intentional, the routing system should withdraw routes that are not certified. Daniel Karrenberg (RIPE NCC) said that Michael's concerns are valid. When the RIPE NCC and the Certification Task Force looked into this it came up. It is clear that a lot of education needs to be done to tell people what it is that they are getting in to. That is part of the program. Nigel is also correct. How this is handled internally in companies is an internal business matter. We can make suggestions, but it is not up to the RIPE NCC to dictate how certificates are being used. If what Lutz wants is implemented, it only happens when ISPs want it. Daniel added that his personal opinion was that, after talking to ISPs about critical resource management, ISPs will be very careful with this. I see this evolving as certificates being used for provisioning first. Only when there is confidence they will be used for stuff which is closer to real time. Hans Petter said that routing policy between ISPs is not dictated by what we do here. Looking at this from the other side, when there are no certificates, anyone can announce anything and destroy business. On the other hand, I'm quite sure that all these telcos know how to cut of their customers if they don't pay their bills. Gert said that certificates give people the ability to perform route origin checking. If it is only used for ISPs towards their customers we already have a win situation. There are some concerns about the specific implementation, but that is not really part of the policy. He added that he thought we should go forward and make it a formal policy proposal. Nigel said that that the wording could be adjusted to apply to objects other than just PA space. Thursday, 09:00-11:30 ================== Proposals 2008-01 and 2008-02 have been withdrawn by the author. E.1 2006-01, "Provider Independent IPv6 Assignment for End User Organizations" Gert Doering summarised the discussions so far. He added that comments would be collected and then Jordi Palet Martinez (Consulintel) would adjust the proposal. James Rice (Jump Networks) said that IPv6 PI space is needed for multihoming. A /48 is a good size. It should be big enough so that they don't need a second one. A larger / could be given if justified. Wilfried Woeber said that he was not speaking in favour or against. He continued that first, there are differences in regions. It is not a global proposal, just regional. In the RIPE region, if we decide not to follow the others, things will be fine. He continued that, with his Address Council hat on, if there is a feeling in the community that this should be globally coordinated, then it should be a global proposal. Otherwise, it's fine that things are done here that other regions don't do or the other way around. The other observation is that almost all restrictions in the regular policy for getting IPv6 adress space have been removed. At the LIR/ISP level there is not much difference. It shows up in the routing table. There is also a special IX policy. He said that he did not really see in the long run why three, four or five special forms of distribution would be needed. Gert said that it's not a global policy. He explained that there has been feedback on lists that having fairly major differences between regions is annoying. For example, organisations could say "If we just had our headquarters in different regions we could do business in a very different way...". He added that it could be useful to try to align policy. Gert continued that an LIR could get a /32. For some enterprises this is hard, because being an LIR is expensive. For others it is not so hard, but there is a hurdle to declaring them as an ISP when they really are not. On the other hand, a routing table slot is just a routing table slot. But also, if they need /48, why give them more? Jordi said that when he started working on this in different regions he started with a /32. Then in several regions there were comments that a /32 was too big. The final policy approved was a /48 in AfriNIC. There has been some discussion in AfriNIC, and the the staff realised that all /48s get filtered and they can't sort it out. He said when the size is decided on, there may be the risk of the prefixes not routed correctly. He proposed that a small change is made in how the proposal is used in LACNIC and then split the proposal into two proposals: one for organisations that already have IPv4 PI space so that they can get IPv6 PI space as well; and one that asks for extra justifications for those that start new and do not have PI space. Gert said that he did not like this idea and that he would prefer an IPv6 policy that is not tied to IPv4, otherwise people might use IPv4 just to get IPv6. Marc Groeneweg (SIDN) said that, as the .nl registry cannot deploy IPv6 now, he was in favour of this proposal, so that there can be independence from ISPs. Gert said that SIDN could become an LIR and get a /32. Marc said that the main objective is to get .nl running and not be an ISP or an LIR. Marco Hoogewoning (XS4ALL) said that, regarding /48s being filtered, he thought that routing or other administrative purposes should not be a reason to get a bigger block and that there should not be special cases. He said that PI space is needed anyway. The /32s of today are the "Class A" of tomorrow. Gert said that, regarding special cases, a decent PI space policy is necessary. Wilfried said that with the changes that are on the way, the distinction between being LIR and not being LIR should be forgotten in regard to IPv4 PI space with contracts. He continued that the reality would be that, if you hold resources, you must have a contract with someone, with either an LIR or the RIPE NCC. He said he did not see what's so bad about being an LIR and that in the future you may have to have a formal relationships with the RIPE NCC anyway. He continued that what this is called doesn't matter and this was discussed that in the RIPE NCC General Meeting. Being an LIR is not a big workload. The requirement to have customers is already gone, you can just get the block of adddresses. Peter Wyatt (HP) said that a /48 wouldn't be big enough for HP. He said that he could document the need. He said that that HP does not want to register as an LIR and need a documented approach between PA space and PI space. Otherwise there will be organisations that have historic space that should not be LIR. Gert said that he had seen HP's prefixes and asked if he could second that ISPs are filtering your announcements or is it mostly working? Peter said that it could be argued that no organisation would need more than a /48. Gert asked if he had seen that /48s work? Or are they filtered? Peter Wyatt said that this works right now in terms of our ARIN and APNIC allocations. He said that HP wants to try to get a /43 PI space from the RIPE NCC as well. Gordon Lennox (European Commission) said that he hears the word "enterprise" but there is another community called "governments". They have no business models and need their own IPv6 space. Arien Veijn (AMSIX) said that AMSIX only has PI space for peering LAN and not for it's services. He said that they are a neutral organisation by nature but would like to have IPv6. Becoming an LIR just to get IPv6 space doesn't feel right. He said that AMSIX gets space through an LIR as the system was designed like that. It would be no problem to have a formal relationship with the RIPE NCC or an LIR. Michael Dillon (BT) said that he has helped companies get PI space in the RIPE and ARIN regions. There really is need, in some cases, for space that's registered in a global registry, such as for financial services for example. He said that when IP addressing and LIR creation began, it was clear that there were two types of need. One type is fixed need with no growth and the other need is ISPs with constant growth and expansion. With IPv6, there may be limits to growth. He continued that things have been divided so that the LIR is the receipient of the large block and is expected to grow. The PI space holder is not expected to grow so if we change the way we do things with IPv6 so that PI space is not really the small size and a /32 is not always for ISPs, he thinks there can be a rational system with more slots for an applicant to fit into. Gert asked if banks want global unique space with their name that is not routed? Michael said that banks do transactions between themselves and that these do not happen on the public Internet. A company like HP doesn't want /48s, /49s, /50s and so on, but HP is not an LIR but it functions like an ISP. He added that there are now three sizes: a /56 for really small users, /48 for any other customer of ISP and PI space and then there is a /32 for the big organisations like universities or ISPs. He suggested this could be extended to non-LIRs, on the same terms as for the smaller organisations. Ruediger Volk (DTAG) said that he was interested in keeping an eye on the effect on routing slots. He said that large scale uncontrolled PI space will create problems in the routing system and that this should be dealt with in the policy even though it is essentially the problem of the operators. He said that he saw three conditions where it doesn't pose a problem: it doesn't show up in routing system and problems with PI space that is mandatorily renumbered every two or three years can be minimised and then cleaned it up. Gert said that regarding unbounded growth, the contracts on the way. Ruediger agreed, and said that he wanted to state that everything mentioned that threatens to keep people from signing contracts is actually already a feature. He said that he was surprised that the EU Commission or HP or organisations of that size would feel threatened by the request to enter into a contract. Those large organisations have explicit IT service organsiations and it could be argued that they have an internal ISP. He said he did not want to see the notion that PI space is available in cases where it is needed but that it is not for everyone. Martin List-Petersen (Airwire) said that, for PI space, saying that everyone could sign up as LIR doesn't solve the routing table issue. He said that for PI space, he thinks this is needed. It has something to do with IPv4 stewardship and added that if IPv6 PI space comes, he is in favour of having contracts. Gert said that this is there. Martin said that from the routing table point of view, forcing organisations to become an LIR doesn't solve aything. James said that he got the impression that HP, I got the impression wants a /44 an asked if this was because of announcing /48s from different unconnected sites. It is important that when they make their request there is space for people to say how they will route it, so that can be taken in to account, and people can make filters. If they intend to announce /48s, it must come from that block and not one that has a /32 minimum allocation size. Marco said that from a global perspective, it's already there. If we formalise this, he can filter and other people can be educated about filtering. It will give a framework for filtering. He added that a way for people to get space without being an LIR should be found. Ruediger said that prefix length filtering will not meet the security requirements of a large scale IPv6 network. Gert said that he heard no fundamental opposition to the proposal and lots of voices that say there is a benifit. He said there was some concern about getting the mechanics right and, as decisions are not made at the meeting, there is enough input to start a new round with the document. He said that the document will be sent to the mailing list and input is needed. E.2 2006-05, "PI Assignment Size" Gert Doering (Chair) explained that the proposal will be sent back to the mailing list and discussion restarted and asked if anyone objected. No one objected. F. "End of IPv4" session F.4 2008-03, "Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-56/presentations/Gagliano-Global_Pol… /8 reservations to RIRs Roque Gagliano Michael Dillon(BT) said that he thought that this was a really bad idea and it moves the point at which IPv4 becomes hard to get closer to us in time. Most people are not concerned about IPv4 exhaustion, but abbout the effects. Gert Doering (Chair) said that for big regions the financial impact is only a few months, for small regions where they really do not have money to upgrade at all, the impact is big. Michael asked if Gert was trying to sell this as a global aid plan for less developed regions? Gert said that it is not his job to sell anything and that he just wants to point out that there are arguments for and against it. Michael commented that the general perception of this is of people playing around with numbers. Yours is the first that ties it to a real world concern. Roque Gagliano (LACNIC) said that the number of ISPs that consume a lot of addresses is very small. This policy helps because it brings certainty about when the last /8 will happen. At LACNIC there are now proposals about what to do with that last /8. The other thing is, it's a strong message to those outside the RIR community that it's not business as usual but that we are doing something special. Daniel Karrenberg (speaking as private citizen) said that people should keep in mind the actual playout of this and whether you can enforce the policies that you are making. He said he had concerns that if the only substantial amounts of IPv4 are located in smaller regions, someone from a larger region may find a policy-compliant way to obtain that address space. It's easy to find a legal entity. He continued that a similar thing applies to all policies that set aside space for special uses, like dual stack. Hans Petter Holen (speaking as private citizen) said that what we are facing is the end of something. There are two extremes: either we keep policies the same and hit the wall; or we try to do the sensible thing. He said that it's hard to figure out what the right thing to do is. Unless very strict regulation is enforced, it's going to be interesting to see what everyone is going to do. Gert said that this discussion should be taken to the mailing list. F.3 2007-09, "Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-56/presentations/Hain-IPv4Cooperativ… Tony Hain IPv4 Cooperative Distribution Ruediger Volk (DTAG) said that there are RIRs that have national registries and asked what does theproposal mean about the pools that are sitting there? Should the RIRs that don't have national registries rush to create them? Tony said that this would be a defence mechanism. Wilfried Woeber asked why APNIC does not like this proposal. Tony Hain said that there was nothing concrete but that there was a specific instance where he was accused of racism and it was assumed that he was attacking specific regions. He said he was not. Wilfried said that he was surprised that a proposal did not get the proper treatment. Gert said that this case should not be discussed right now. Ray Palzak (ARIN) said that he wanted to comment about what happened at the ARIN Meeting and the status of this proposal in the ARIN region. He continued that there were 12 in favour, 25 against and that the Advisory Council recommended that this proposal is abandoned. Tony said that this was the original proposal and asked how many people were in favour of continuing to work on this. Ray said that this proposal was not alive in the ARIN region. Chris Morrow (Google) said that 'RIR shopping' happens today on a relatively large scale and said that he knew of at least two examples. Gert said that this is a more formalised way of doing things without people setting up subsidiaries all over the planet. An attendee said that large global corporations do this today. Chris said that there are organisations who have operations in California but have APNIC and RIPE NCC address space. Akinori Maemura (JPNIC/APNIC) said that he will check the situation but thought that the proposal did not have consensus at the time. APNIC has NIRs, but there is a shared pool at APNIC which serves the NIRs, so this is not a concern. Gert asked for a show of hands about the mechanics of the proposals. A few people thought that the general direction of the proposal was good. No one thought it was a bad idea. Gert commented that three-quarters of the room did not show their hands. Daniel said that it could be that they have no opinion. Gert concluded that there is some support, and some voices against and said that the proposal would be sent the mailing list for further discussion. F.1 Ongoing transfer policy http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-56/presentations/Yilmaz-Others_Trans… Discussions in the other RIR regions Observing Others: Transfer Proposals Filiz Yilmaz (RIPE NCC) This presentation was given to provide an overview of the transfer proposals in other regions and to facilitate discussion in the RIPE region. There were no questions. F.2 2007-08, "Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-56/presentations/van_Mook-2007-08_up… "The Market" proposal Remco van Mook (Virtu) 2007-08 update Gert Doering (Chair) said that people are doing transfers today. Not doing this will not stop it. This is to help the RIPE NCC keep track. Michael Dillon (BT) said that the thought this is a waste of time. The period in time is that the IPv4 is used up, so that most of it is in use and is not available for transfer. Most of it is allocated to a few large ISPs. These are companies that are constantly growing, so they won't sell it, and even if they did, it would cost too much to validate and check and get approval to release the addresses,making sure the left hand doens't give away what right hand needs. He said he did not see a lot of transfers happening at all. Remco van Mook (Virtu) said that not all organisations are as big as BT and that he did not expect to see /11s transfered through this policy. There are actually quite a few people who would like to get their hands on a /20 and so there needs to be a mechanism to get that administered properly. Andy Davidson (LONAP) said that he supported this because it allows documentation of the changes that will happen. He asked if PA space must not have any assignments in it when it is transfered. Remco said that this proposal is only for allocated and unassigned space and that is because he thought it would be the easiest to address. He said that PI space could be included and allocated and assigned later. James Wilson (HEANet) said that he agreed that it would be difficult to free up space. Organisations need to move to IPv6, but in order to do that they still need some IPv4 space. This will take place at different rates in in diferent organisations. He continued that unless we do nothing, the only option is to provide the posibilties for one organisation to free it up quickly so another can use it. There is no other proposal besides this that can get us there. He stated that he supported this proposal. Tom Vest (RIPE NCC) asked if there had there been an evaluation of the legal implications of this. He said that if you take a common resource and transfer it to a private party, this is privitisation. It has huge tax and regulatory implications. Although this is an ambiguous case, there is a lot of economic doctrine about this. The substance of this is very close to privitisation and that probably merits careful review. Tom continued that when you associate the IPv4 resources with value and, if the value is substantial, you have the resource and you know it will be more valuable every day. It could create delaying migration incentives. Remco said that he thought it will be huge incentive for IPv6 to evolve. The entire IPv4 legacy space will be worthless eventually because everyone is on IPv6. It might take a while, but it will happen. If IPv6 is free and IPv4 is expensive, then there is automatic migration. Remco said that there is a legal and economic aspect, but that nothing can be done about that. People are doing transfers, we need to accept a framework. It is already a defacto standard. James Rice (Jump Networks) said that the minimum transfer is minimum allocation size, instead of minimum /8 allocation size and asked if Remco was sure he wanted that in the proposal? Remco said that by increasing the use, you will increase fragmentation. He said that we could stick to the minimum allocation size for the /8, but thought that there won't be a difference. He said that he would rather keep it simple and have a single number. Alain Bidron (France Telecom/ETNO) said that during the RIPE 55 Meeting a set of principles was presented and there was a followup. He said that there was a new common position on IPv4 exhaustion. This was published on the Address Policy mailing list. The main message is that before we support transfers, we have to carefully consider the impact of such a move. He said that he referred the audience to the position paper from ETNO and said that ETNO was not in a position to support this proposal. Remco said that it was fiction that this proposal creates a market. This is not true. This proposal will just document what is already there. Alain said that all impacts have to be carefully considered and analysed. It is a radical change. Remco said that if there were two more years to analyse it, we should do that, but we don't have two years left. He said that if we don't start implementing this it will be pointless. Therefore, we should move forward or abandon it. Daniel Karrenberg (RIPE NCC) said that Tom pointed out that if we privatise these resource it will have interesting consequences. It might actually increase those perverse incentives. He continued that If he was a big ISP and had lots of IPv4, it would prevent me from going to IPv4. If you look at ARIN/APNIC, at the differences, you might say is ARIN over-specifying. But what they are really trying to do is to keep the address space as public resource. You cannot transfer without the need being demonstrated beforehand. The APNIC and RIPE proposal says you can transfer but with one sentence: "the usual policies apply". He continued that, for example, the transferee does not have justified need and says "I sell you this address space" Do you think the RIR has a chance to go after them and say you don't need this. He said the thought this was fiction. Either come out and say "we privatise", otherwise it will bring the RIR in an untenable position. We can do this, and say this is just window dressing. He said that he was not saying that one is better than another but that we should be honest with ourselves. Roque Gagliano (LACNIC) said that this is also the view of the LACNIC Board: any transfer policy for legacy resources should be discussed amongst all RIR communities in a global basis. Gert concluded that the proposal would be sent to the mailing list for another round of discussion. Daniel said that we should listen to our LACNIC colleagues and ask if the regional policies should be better aligned then they are now. He said that maybe we should ask approporiate parts of PDPs to align themselves. Gert asked for a show of hands to see whether parts of the PDPs should be aligned across regions. There was a lot of support. ACTION ON RIPE NCC: Keep track of other regions PDPs and figure out if it's possible to align the proposals. Hand Petter Holen (Address Council) said that there is some work there for coordinating processes. He said he was not saying that the AC should do that, but there is some work there. Z. AOB ----- End forwarded message ----- -- 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

1 0

Fwd: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by Niall O'Reilly 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

I'm sorry, I meant to send this to the list, "out loud" rather than as an aside to Gert. ------- Forwarded message ------- From: "Niall O'Reilly" <Niall.oReilly(a)ucd.ie> To: "Gert Doering" <gert(a)space.net> Cc: Niall.oReilly(a)ucd.ie Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:44:25 +0100 On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:43:03 +0100, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: > Actually I'd like to hear a few more voices regarding this latest version > of 2007-01 (v4). We have deliberatly set a fairly short discussion phase > to be able to get it *done*, finally, before Dubai, so please voice your > opinions now. V4 seems fine to me. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly University College Dublin IT Services

1 0

Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by Ana Matic 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

PDP Number: 2007-01 Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2007-01 has been revised based on the latest community feedback. We have published the new version (version 4) 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/2007-01.html and the draft documents at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft2007-01-v4.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-421-draft2007-01-v4.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-389-draft2007-01-v4.html http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-256-draft2007-01-v4.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft2007-01-v4.html We encourage you to review this revised policy proposal and the draft documents and send your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 September 2008. Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC

2 1

2008-03 Proposal Accepted (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space)
by Filiz Yilmaz 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

PDP Number: 2008-03 Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2008-03 has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-03.html A new RIPE Document has also been published to document this new policy: ripe-436, "Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-436.html Please note that this is a global policy and will therefore come into effect only after it has been accepted as a policy in all other RIR regions and then ratified by ICANN. Thank you for your input. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

2007-04 - IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs.
by Filiz Yilmaz 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

Dear Colleagues, Proposal 2007-04, Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet Registries, was accepted by the RIPE community in September 2007. This proposal has since reached consensus in all other RIR regions and it was also ratified by ICANN. Therefore, the proposal is now in effect as a global policy. You can find the policy documented at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-416.html Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

comments on 2008-05 Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM
by Jim Reid 04 Sep '08

04 Sep '08

I am broadly supportive of the principle behind this proposal. However the detail needs some refinement IMO. It's not clear what is meant by "Tier-0/1" or even "ENUM". This needs to be clarified. I think we all know what we mean by these terms. But the proposal does not define them or incorporate a definition by reference. My worry here is that if "ENUM" in particular is not defined, the proposal as written opens up a pandora's box. Does it apply *exclusively* to the public e164.arpa tree? If not, which other flavours of ENUM does the proposal cover? I'm thinking here of potential implementations of Infrastructure ENUM which could be done either on the public Internet or behind closed doors between telcos: should these be entitled to a /24 for anycasting too? Let's say two telcos implement some form of Infrastructure ENUM for cross-operator routing. Will this proposal mean they will both be entitled to a /24 for their respective ENUM trees? Since telcos tend to use bi-lateral agreements, there is the prospect here of forests of ENUM trees. Each telco could well have a tree for each telco it has a bi-liateral agreement for Infrastructure ENUM and each of these trees could be entitled to a /24 for anycasting.

1 0

2007-09 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool)
by Ana Matic 01 Sep '08

01 Sep '08

PDP Number: 2007-09 Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2007-09, "Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool" has been withdrawn. The proposer decided to withdraw this proposal due to insufficient support for it. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-09.html Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC

1 0

Reminder: NRO NC Nominations
by Axel Pawlik 27 Aug '08

27 Aug '08

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, The period for nominating candidates from the RIPE NCC service region to fill one vacant seat on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number council (NC) is currently open. The term of Wilfried Woeber, who was appointed to the NRO NC by the RIPE NCC Executive Board in January 2006, ends on 31 December 2008. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will select one representative from the nominees to serve a three-year term on the NRO NCC beginning 1 January 2009. The decision of the Executive Board will be announced at the RIPE 57 Meeting, which will be held in Dubai, UAE, from 26-30 October 2008. The deadline for nominations is 22 September 2008. Any individual residing within the RIPE NCC service region is eligible for nomination, except Regional Internet Registry (RIR) staff members. Self-nominations are permitted. Please send your nominations to <nominations(a)ripe.net> by 23:00 UTC on 22 September 2008. To find out more about the NRO NC and the election process, please see: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2008/ Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC Important Dates: 22 September 2008: Deadline for NRO NC nominations 10 October 2008: Deadline for all confirmed nominations to be posted on the RIPE NCC website 27 October 2008: Result of the selection announced at the RIPE 57 Meeting in Dubai, UAE

1 0

Re: [ncc-services-wg] from Kazakhstan
by Alex le Heux 26 Aug '08

26 Aug '08

Dear Dmitriy, > We have LIR-status (Asia, Kazakhstan). We have address space IPv/19 (see > Application 1, described below), DNS and AS-number (ASN-15549 ticket > NCC#200073996 for BankNet Data Network). [...] ncc-services-wg(a)ripe.net and address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net are public discussion mailing lists. If you wish to contact the RIPE NCC directly in the future, it is best to send mail to lir-help(a)ripe.net or ncc(a)ripe.net. In the mean time, we will reply to your ticket today. Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC

1 0

new policy idea for PA allocations
by Remco van Mook 08 Aug '08

08 Aug '08

[ This email is *not* about 2007-08 but something else that crossed my mind, expect a revised 2007-08 soon ] Dear all, I want to hear your feedback on an idea that I've been playing with for a while - it has to do with the way the RIR allocates blocks of space to an approved IPv4 PA allocation request. Currently that's very simple. Once the request is approved for, say, a /15, you get a single routable block of space, a /15. But what do we do when the RIR does not have that size block anymore? Allocate multiple blocks to that request (so, for example, 2 /17s, 1 /18, 5 /19s and 2 /20s)? What I would suggest is that we set into policy that the RIR, in cases like this, allocates a single best-fit routable block of IPv4 space. So, if the request is for a /12 and the biggest block the RIR has left is a /14, you get a /14. The rationale behind this is quite simple: the requester is not going to be happy to get a bunch of /24s from all over the swamp space to fill his request, and at the same time we remove the risk that a single request is able to wipe out the entire RIR reserves. Smaller requests can still be fulfilled and the LIRs that need more space simply need to come back more often - the 80% usage rule still applies. As long as the RIR has a supply from IANA, this rule will have no operational impact as far as I can see. I'm hesitant whether we should apply this to PI requests as well - I'd say yes but that does have an impact on the way we're currently handling that... Let me know what you think. Best, Remco Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com

7 9

Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by Ana Matic 07 Aug '08

07 Aug '08

PDP Number: 2007-01 Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, The new version of the proposal described in 2007-01 has now been published and is moved back to Review Period. Also, the new draft document "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region" has been published. This document describes the contractual requirements necessary for End Users of provider independent resources and also speaks to the status of pre-existing assignments. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html and the draft documents at: http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft-2007-01-v3.html http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-421-draft.html http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-389-draft.html http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft-2007-01-v3.html We encourage you to review this revised policy proposal and the draft documents and send your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 24 July 2008. Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC

23 69

2008-03 Last Call for Comments (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space)
by Filiz Yilmaz 07 Aug '08

07 Aug '08

PDP Number: 2008-03 Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2008-03 is now at its Concluding Phase. The Address Policy Working Group Chairs determined that the working group reached consensus at the end of the Review Phase, so the proposal is now moved to a Last Call for Comments. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-03.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 19 August 2008. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

4 3

IP Address Management
by lrinetti＠libero.it 04 Aug '08

04 Aug '08

Dear Sirs, i'm looking for a document like: "address-policy for dummies" to better understand how manage public IP address spaces, giving my low level experience in this world. I need this information for my new job in a little ISP in Italy. Thank You and Best Regards Luciano lrinetti(a)libero.it

1 0

NRO NC call for nominations
by Axel Pawlik 28 Jul '08

28 Jul '08

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, This is a call for nominations from the RIPE NCC service region to fill one vacant seat on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number council (NC). The term of Wilfried Woeber, who was appointed to the NRO NC by the RIPE NCC Executive Board in January 2006, ends on 31 December 2008. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will select one representative from the nominees to serve a three-year term on the NRO NCC beginning 1 January 2009. The decision of the Executive Board will be announced at the RIPE 57 Meeting, which will be held in Dubai, UAE, from 26-30 October 2008. The deadline for nominations is 22 September 2008. Any individual residing within the RIPE NCC service region is eligible for nomination, except Regional Internet Registry (RIR) staff members. Self-nominations are permitted. Please send your nominations to <nominations(a)ripe.net> by 23:00 UTC on 22 September 2008. To find out more about the NRO NC and the election process, please see: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2008/ Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC Important Dates: 22 September 2008: Deadline for NRO NC nominations 10 October 2008: Deadline for all confirmed nominations to be posted on the RIPE NCC website 27 October 2008: Result of the selection announced at the RIPE 57 Meeting in Dubai, UAE

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Kelaidi Christina 17 Jul '08

17 Jul '08

Dear Milton and colleagues ETNO, in coming to the position that it did, considered the transfer issue from all angles, and the points that you raised in your e-mail were part of that consideration. ETNO will continue to contribute the RIPE mailing list in the future but see no reason at this stage to change its position. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues WG Chairperson

1 0