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

RE: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Kelaidi Christina 14 Jul '08

14 Jul '08

Dear colleagues Regarding the policy proposal 2007-08: strong arguments in favour and against this policy proposal have been raised by a large number of members of the Address Policy working group mailing list. ETNO has raised a number of issues, including significant concerns regarding the possible impact of this proposal. ETNO's main concerns relate to: 1) the potential impact of an IPv4 market; and, 2) ensuring the stability of the IP addressing bottom-up policy development processes. In particular ETNO has mentioned that facilitating a market that attaches an intrinsic "value" to an IP address would engage competition authorities, policymakers. The emergence of market forces on addressing policy will raise legal issues that could have detrimental impact on the successful bottom-up processes that keep the Internet community from being engaged in discussions regarding intervention or new models of governmental control. ETNO is convinced that allowing for transfers within a single RIR region will not result in the release of significant -- or, long-term -- blocks of address space available for new entrants in the addressing community. Even so, it is important to maintain the transfer policy that addresses the situation where addresses are being transferred between organisations in situations such as mergers or acquisitions. ETNO believes that any transfer policy should provide a number of safeguards. Specifically, ETNO believes that several of the criteria set currently for allocation of IPv4 addresses should be implemented during transfers, e.g. all IP address transfer requests "should be approved by the regional registry. If any assignment is found to be based on false information, the registry may invalidate the request and return the assigned addresses back to the pool of free addresses for later assignment". The proposed policy 2008-07 does not provide according to ETNO sufficient safeguards and therefore ETNO could not support the 2007-08 Policy Proposal, Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources, as it stands. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues WG Chairperson

5 8

(no subject)
by Milton L Mueller 10 Jul '08

10 Jul '08

Dear Kelaidi: In the course of preparing the analysis of transfer markets I carefully reviewed the ETNO paper. I must confess that the primary substantive argument in it seems to be "we have never done it this way before, therefore it is bad." Let me engage with the idea that allowing transfers somehow brings in governments and governmentality. This is a very strange argument, and I am not sure I understand it. The RIRs maintain a private sector-based, contractual model of governance. Governments are currently involved, via the courts, as enforcers and interpreters of the contracts. I am sure you would agree with this. Now, if the terms of RIR contracts are modified to allow transfers, I do not see any fundamental change in the character of the relationship between RIRs and governments. Nor do I see any big change in the way the RIRs set address policies. I just see a different policy. When you talk about competition policy, perhaps you mean that acquisition or use of addresses could be abused by a market participant in an attempt to exclude competitors. But if that turns out to be true, then what is wrong with competition law being applied? It is also true that if government authorites believed that _current_ RIR policies were somehow discriminatory or anti-competitive then they could intervene. For example, suppose there is no transfer market, and telephone companies or other ISPs used their control of increasingly scarce IPv4 address pools in a way that competition authorities believed prevented competitive entry into the market. If they could make a case for that under existing law, they could intervene in RIR activities. Nothing stops competition policy authorites from scrutinizing what RIRs and ISPs do now. If your peering agreements, or your mergers and acquisitions, or your price-setting activities run afoul of competition law you will be dealing with government. nothing the RIRs can do can change that. In short, the presence or absence of a transfer policy has nothing to do with the propensity of governmental authorities to intervene. What _might_ make them more likely to intervene in the new environment is the increasing _scarcity_ of address resources, which makes access to addresses more contentious. That scarcity will exist whether or not we adopt a transfer policy. From: "Kelaidi Christina" <kelaidi(a)ote.gr> To: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Dear colleagues Regarding the policy proposal 2007-08: strong arguments in favour and against this policy proposal have been raised by a large number of members of the Address Policy working group mailing list. ETNO has raised a number of issues, including significant concerns regarding the possible impact of this proposal. ETNO's main concerns relate to: 1) the potential impact of an IPv4 market; and, 2) ensuring the stability of the IP addressing bottom-up policy development processes. In particular ETNO has mentioned that facilitating a market that = attaches an intrinsic "value" to an IP address would engage competition = authorities, policymakers.=A0 The emergence of market forces on = addressing policy will raise legal issues that could have detrimental = impact on the successful bottom-up processes that keep the Internet = community from being engaged in discussions regarding intervention or = new models of governmental control. =A0 ETNO is convinced that allowing for transfers within a single RIR region = will not result in the release of significant -- or, long-term -- blocks = of address space available for new entrants in the addressing = community.=A0Even so, it is important to=A0maintain=A0the transfer = policy that addresses the situation where addresses are being = transferred between organisations in situations such as mergers or = acquisitions.=20 =A0 ETNO believes that any transfer policy should provide a number of = safeguards. Specifically, ETNO believes that several of the criteria set = currently for=A0allocation of IPv4 addresses should be implemented = during transfers, e.g. all IP address transfer requests = "should=A0be=A0approved by the regional registry. If any assignment is = found to be based on false information, the registry may invalidate the = request and return the assigned addresses back to the pool of free = addresses for later assignment".=20 =A0 The proposed policy 2008-07 does not provide according to ETNO = sufficient safeguards and therefore ETNO could not support the 2007-08 = Policy Proposal, Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources, as = it stands. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues WG Chairperson --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:28:31 +0200 From: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> To: Ana Matic <anamatic(a)ripe.net> Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Hi APWG folks, this proposal keep being difficult for our processes. We got a rebound from the WG chair collective, because they felt that there was no explicit consensus for version *2* of the proposal, which had some signficant changes (inclusion of ERX in the text). Now this is v3, trying to work out the last wrinkles, and get it through the process properly, and we got *NO* comments on it. "No comments" does not mean "consensus". It means "nobody is interested, leave us alone with this". I think that this is a very important milestone, and it needs good backing by the community (or if you don't want it, it should be explicitely torn down). The main difference v2 -> v3 is that ERX space has been completely taken out [because RIPE has no legal basis to enforce anything - we'll come back to this with a new proposal], and that there is a *new* document that describes what to do with existing end-user assignments - which has exactly the same intent as v2, but we can't put requirements for existing assignments into a "new assignments" documents, so this needed cleaning up. So - please read the documents, as referenced in Ana's mail below, and then explicitely voice agreement or disagreement with 2007-01 v3. thanks, Gert Doering, APWG Chair On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 04:22:44PM +0200, Ana Matic wrote: > 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 > Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 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 --__--__-- Message: 3 From: Florian Weimer <fw(a)deneb.enyo.de> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:11:59 +0200 * Ana Matic: > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html What's the status of EARLY-REGISTRATION space with regards to sub-assignment and the establishment of contracts? > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft-2007-01-v3.html I don't think recovering resources from unwilling end users is a good way to spend the membership fees. (I don't speak for any member, though.) And unless there is a clear incentive (which I don't see--the thread of revoking the assignment is not particularly convincing), a lot of end users will be unwilling. --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:06:44 +0200 From: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> To: Florian Weimer <fw(a)deneb.enyo.de> Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Hi, On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:11:59AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html > > What's the status of EARLY-REGISTRATION space with regards to > sub-assignment and the establishment of contracts? Well, the "new document" draft very clearly states this: > > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft-2007-01-v3.html ----------- quote ---------- 1.1 Scope This policy document describes the contractual requirements for End Users of provider independent resources which have been assigned either directly by the RIPE NCC or through a Local Internet Registry in the RIPE NCC Service area. ----------- quote ---------- As ERX space has not been assigned by the RIPE NCC or a RIPE LIR, it is not covered by v3 of the 2007-01 proposal. We will come up with a new proposal how to handle ERX space (which is not yet written and thus cannot be discussed yet). Regarding sub-assignments of ERX space: I'm not sure exactly how the policy is right now, but since we're not going to touch ERX anyway, so nothing would change there. > I don't think recovering resources from unwilling end users is a good > way to spend the membership fees. (I don't speak for any member, > though.) And unless there is a clear incentive (which I don't see--the > thread of revoking the assignment is not particularly convincing), a lot > of end users will be unwilling. One of the incentives would be "without a clear contractual relationship, we can't give out a certificate for this resource". The main focus for the implementation is "new resource assignments", of course, but for consistency reasons it's important to have a plan how to tackle existing stuff. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 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 --__--__-- Message: 5 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:14:11 +0200 From: Marcus Stoegbauer <ms(a)man-da.de> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Ana Matic wrote: > 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: > I fully support the meaning of this proposal and think it is the right way to make sure that the RIPE DB reflects the real world. However, I think I noticed a small problem in http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft-2007-01-v3.html The new text in "9.0 PA vs. PI Address Space" states: |The policies stated above about the PI address space covers all non PA |address space maintained in the RIPE database, except address space |marked as Early Registration (ERX) and address space marked as NON-SET. This somewhat conflicts with: |1.1 Scope | |This document describes the policies for the responsible management of |globally unique IPv4 Internet address space in the RIPE NCC service |region. The policies documented here apply to all IPv4 address space |allocated and assigned by the RIPE NCC. Take 130.83.0.0/16 for example. It is "ASSIGNED PI" now, but it has never been assigned by the RIPE NCC (see RFC 1117, the assignment is first mentioned there). Of course this can easily be fixed, for example by changing the first sentence of the above quoted new text to: The policies stated above about the PI address space covers all non PA address space allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC and maintained in the RIPE database, ... Marcus -- man-da.de GmbH, AS8365 Phone: +49 6151 16-6956 Petersenstr. 30 Fax: +49 6151 16-3050 D-64287 Darmstadt e-mail: ms(a)man-da.de Geschäftsführer Dr. Jürgen Ohrnberger AG Darmstadt, HRB 94 84 --__--__-- Message: 6 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:58:42 +0200 From: Shane Kerr <shane(a)time-travellers.org> To: Florian Weimer <fw(a)deneb.enyo.de> Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Florian, [ I realize the contents of this post may be somewhat controversial. In fact, I expect most people to oppose the basic ideas. ] On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:11:59AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft-2007-01-v3.html > > I don't think recovering resources from unwilling end users is a > good way to spend the membership fees. (I don't speak for any > member, though.) And unless there is a clear incentive (which I > don't see--the thread of revoking the assignment is not particularly > convincing), a lot of end users will be unwilling. I also don't speak for any member, but I think revoking assignments is a fantastic idea. In fact, I don't see how it makes sense to do otherwise. Someone claims to be the authorized user of some addresses. *Nobody* has any relationship wth this person. The only evidence you have is that at one time in the past someone was assigned the addresses. Sure, I can call the people peering with the originator of the advertisement, and see why they are carrying the traffic. They might or might not be willing to give me that information, or privacy or business reasons. Also, all because it is convenient for them to carry the advertisements does not mean somebody else won't do the same thing for the same space for a different originator. And finally, we have a perfectly workable system so I don't *have* to go through this kind of nonsense: the RIR system. If people are unwilling to sign a contract which basically says, "I am using this address space", then take their space back. It's not scary, really. Revokation is a good thing. -- Shane End of address-policy-wg Digest

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Milton L Mueller 06 Jul '08

06 Jul '08

Colleagues: I have prepared a paper on address transfer policy which will be released soon. It is now being reviewed. Due to RIPE's impending July 9 comment deadline I am sending the abstract of the paper to this list. Anyone interested in receiving a copy of the paper can contact me privately and I will send a copy when it is finished. If you have expertise in the economics of addressing or other virtual resources I'd be happy to send an advance draft for review. Of course, we can also discuss and elaborate here on some of the conclusions presented. Dr. Milton Mueller, Professor, Syracuse University School Of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology IPv4 Address Markets and the Regional Internet Address Registries. Abstract We are running out of Internet addresses. This paper evaluates address transfer policies that Internet governance agencies are considering as a response to the depletion of the IPv4 address space. The paper focuses on proposals to allow organizations holding IPv4 addresses to sell address blocks to other organizations willing to buy them. This paper analyzes the economics of the proposed transfer policies, and conducts a systematic comparison of the policies proposed in the three main world Internet regions. It concludes that: * Address transfer markets offer a pragmatic solution to the problem of reclaiming a substantial amount of unused IP address space and of re-allocating addresses to their most efficient uses * The risks of instituting well-designed address transfer policies are small when compared to the potential benefits. The change is less radical than it appears. * A failure to legitimize address transfer markets would create substantial risks of the institutionalization of gray or black markets in IPv4 address resources, leading to a deterioration of accurate registration and administration of the legacy address space. This could have severe negative implications for Internet security. * The need for a transfer policy stands on its own and should not be considered part of a transition plan to the new Internet version protocol version 6. We do not know how long or even whether the global Internet will succeed migrating to IPv6. It would therefore be irresponsible to base IPv4 management policies on an assumption that such a migration will take place. * The proposed address transfer policies being considered by RIPE and APNIC are more liberal than ARIN's. Most of the legacy IPv4 address space is in North America; thus, the policies ARIN adopts have the most importance and should be formulated with the good of the global Internet in mind. RIPE, ARIN and APNIC should strive to harmonize their transfer policies and (in the longer term) make inter-regional transfers possible.

1 0

RIPE NCC will begin allocating from 188/8
by Alex Le Heux 03 Jul '08

03 Jul '08

Dear Colleagues, The IANA and the RIRs are working on an ongoing basis to verify and correct registration data of legacy address space to identify free space in these blocks. As a result of this work the RIPE NCC will begin allocating from 188/8 in future. The minimum allocation size for 188/8 has been set at /21. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-434.html Please also note that three "pilot" prefixes will be announced from 188/8. These prefixes are: 188.0.0.0/16 188.0.0.0/21 188.0.0.0/24 They will all originate in AS12654. The following pingable addresses will available in these blocks: 188.0.8.1 188.0.1.1 188.0.0.1 More information on this "pilot" activity is available in the document "De-Bogonising New Address Blocks", which can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-351.html Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC

1 0

2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Filiz Yilmaz 15 Jun '08

15 Jun '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 9 July 2008. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.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 Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

24 60

2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Erics 13 Jun '08

13 Jun '08

We do not support the 2007-8 proposal! We have a clear policy that obligates LIRs to give back unused address blocks to RIPE-NCC. This is a clear procedure. If we open a kind of address-market we establish some more abuse possibilities. All in all we endore Per´s statement given below on June 11th. Eric Schmidt Deutsche Telekom Technischer Service Central Services | LIR de.telekom

2 1

Re: 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Sander Steffann 13 Jun '08

13 Jun '08

Hello everyone, In the last two days there have been a lot of messages about proposal 2007-08. We have seen support, but also some concerns. To be able to reach consensus, these concerns have to be discussed. Here is a summary: Randy Bush: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00355… - Transfering address space still assigned to end users - Inter-region transfers Per Heldal: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00354… - Keep demonstrated need criteria for address space by receiving LIR - Legal implications for RIPE NCC - Viable plans for reclaiming space to continue with current policies for a significant time? http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00365… - Possiblity of setting up LIRs for hoarding Jay Daley: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00366… - Seller can choose who to sell to, not transparent - Discrimination of LIRs in developing countries in the RIPE region - Reclaim/reuse could be more efficient than transfering - Faster depletion because of hoarding - Legal implications for RIPE NCC - Degradation of RIPE DB because of rival trading exchange databases Eric Schmidt: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00381… - Breaks the current policy that unused address blocks return to RIPE NCC - Transfers open up more possibilities for abuse ETNO: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00293… - A transfer system can not ensure a process that is open, transparent and equitable - Negative impact on routing tables - Keep demonstrated need criteria for address space by receiving LIR I want to thank everyone for voicing their support and concerns. At this point in the process, please focus the discussion on the open issues. Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

1 0

2008-03 Review Period extended until 26 June 2008 (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space)
by Filiz Yilmaz 12 Jun '08

12 Jun '08

PDP Number: 2008-03 Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2008-03 has been extended until 26 June 2008. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-03.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

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Marco Hogewoning 11 Jun '08

11 Jun '08

On 11 jun 2008, at 13:03, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:46:14PM +0200, Marco Hogewoning wrote: >> I agree > > Please be specific: do you agree to the proposal, or to the request > that > people voice their support? > > (Off-List, but this is important when the question "who was in > favour of > it, and who opposed it" is going to be asked) > ed) Sorry for the confusion. I support this proposal. Groet, MarcoH

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Niall Murphy 11 Jun '08

11 Jun '08

I support this proposal. Niall > Dear all, > > Following up on Filiz' announcement, I would like to ask people > supporting 2007-08 to let their voices be heard on this mailing list; we > can only move it forward if the wg chairs see enough support for it (and > so far there has been a lot of informal support). > > Thank you, > > Remco van Mook > > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Filiz Yilmaz > Sent: woensdag 11 juni 2008 10:32 > To: policy-announce(a)ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July > 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) > > 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 9 > July 2008. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.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 > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC > Policy Development Officer > > > > > 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 >

1 0

2007-08: response to ETNO position
by Remco van Mook (Virtu) 04 Jun '08

04 Jun '08

Dear all, and in particular the representatives of ETNO, Let me first thank ETNO for taking the effort, twice, to make a valuable contribution to the discussion surrounding the 'Afterlife' of IPv4 in the form of position papers. It is good to see that we all seem to agree on the following fundamentals: - The available free pool of "allocatable" IPv4 addresses will run out - quite likely by 2012. - The existing IPv4 network will continue to operate for many decades to come. - There will still be demand for IPv4 addresses. - After the available pool of IPv4 addresses is exhausted, needs (even limited) will continue to appear that are provided with other options - The only long-term solution to the "unavailability" of IPv4 addresses is the widespread adoption and deployment of IPv6 infrastructure, transport and client services. (This is pretty much a literal copy from the ETNO position; I could have used my presentations on the subject as a source as well) The other point that most of us will readily agree with, is that we don't like markets. Markets for IPv4, of course. I'm not particularly fond of the idea, either. I would encourage anyone who is completely in favor of an IPv4 market to establish to visit the next ICANN meeting and see first hand what a thriving market has arisen in the domain name space. But there the agreement stops. Let me first rephrase what 2007-08 is about, before responding to ETNO's position. 2007-08 is about setting up a framework for (IPv4) resource transfers between LIRs. Nothing more, nothing less. No IPv6, no ASNs. No PI, no ERX. It is a framework in the sense that, in my opinion, it encompasses the absolute minimum set of policy changes required for this to happen without immediately shooting ourselves in the foot. It is a starting point, not an end point for transfer policies. It does not create a market. We don't stop making policies right after passing this one; the proposed framework can be adapted, altered, even abandoned if we see as a community see fit. The point about moving on urgently with 2007-08 is that it does make a significant impact on how the RIRs run their shop. Implementing and testing 2007-08 takes time, probably a lot of time. Having it in place before the RIRs run out means that we at least have policy we can execute when we run out. Current policy would even allow a single request for a large block of addresses to completely clean out the reserves a RIR might still have in smaller available blocks. But I digress. ETNO, in its position paper, provides a number of principles that a 'post-IPv4' (ETNO's term, not mine) world should obey. I'll mention them shortly and then reply. 1) Identification of legitimate use ETNO would like, in short, to be able to identify parties that have genuine rights of use over IPv4 address prefixes. It is also argued that this can only be done globally, not regionally because that 'will be unworkable'. This global approach must also be in place long before the period in which IPv4 is harder to get. While I agree that we need to keep track on who has rights on what - it is one of the key points of 2007-08 - doing it globally would mean abandoning all RIR databases for a global registry. And this global registry is required as of today. As you all know, IPv4 is already harder to get; policy has changed last year so LIRs can only get enough for a 1 year period rather than a 2 year period. In my opinion, this is a 'pie in the sky' idea. It is unlikely for a global policy to establish itself within any reasonable time if that policy would abandon the single most significant asset of any RIR; their database. 2) Transparency Any decision regarding allocation or assignment must be done in a transparent and public way and consistent with the bottom-up policy process. Any deficiencies should be removed from policy before then. And globally, of course. I fully agree on transparency. What I fail to see is what is meant with 'public way' and why 2007-08 would fall short of that mark. The RIRs don't currently make the arguments based on which an LIR receives an allocation public, either. When IPv4 space moves hands because of a merger or acquisition this doesn't happen either. That's all current bottom-up policy. 3) Fair and neutral reuse All recovered address space should be recycled in a globally synchronized fashion. RIRs should work harder recovering IPv4 space. I think that this is a good idea, but let's not overestimate what IANA and the RIRs are able to recover. Current global demand is among the lines of 13 /8s a year. Taking low-hanging fruit that has already been recovered into account we can perhaps recycle another dozen /8s. Recovering those will take years. The same goes for re-tasking any experimental or reserved space to 'global unicast'. It would take years to accomplish and only have a very limited impact. As I've said in one of my presentations, even if we were to find a brand new and completely empty IPv4 space somewhere (which will not happen) we'd probably use that up in a decade as well. The fundamental issue is consumption, not lack of production. 4) Self-regulation Allocation of IPv4 addresses should always be guided and regulated by the bottom-up process of the RIRs. Fully agreed. What we probably do not agree upon is what comes out of this process. In addition, one of my main reasons for pushing 2007-08 is that I would very much like that the RIRs stay relevant and the process stays in place. Removing IPv4 from the grasp of the RIRs (and therefore also from the bottom-up policy process) is the single most significant risk of not facing the 'afterlife' in a timely fashion. The moment the RIRs say 'no you can't have more space and you're not allowed to get it anywhere else' is the moment the world turns to another place for that resource. I find it curious that ETNO puts significant effort into writing position papers such as this one and not join us in that bottom-up process, but that's a different matter. 5) No connection between IPv4 and IPv6 Policies we make for the 'afterlife' of IPv4 should not affect any policy with regard to IPv6. Yes. 2007-08 is in compliance with that. In another chapter, ETNO also addresses a few aspects they think should be taken under consideration. In their point of view, we can either get a reclaim/reuse model or a transfer model. I think we can get both, provided we change allocation policy so that a single request can not wipe out carefully built-up reserves. This falls outside of 2007-08 or any other current policy proposal but I'd expect a proposal sooner rather than later. In describing transfers, ETNO argues that transfers are the first step towards a market. That is false. It is the first step towards a market under the control of the RIRs and the current bottom-up policy process we all know and love. A market will evolve whether we accommodate it or not. The report also reiterates that by adopting transfers we abandon that bottom-up policy process. I don't remember putting that in my proposal - perhaps I should read it again. To finish up, the ETNO paper worries about the options RIRs might have to enforce policies in a transfer situation. I'll let you in on a secret: how many times has a conflict been brought to the RIPE NCC arbitration council? Once. Just one. That either means that we all gladly and completely abide set policy or that the real world options RIRs have to enforce policy are limited in the first place. I'll let you choose. In summary: Thanks for bearing with me - this is quite a bit longer than I anticipated it to be. The ETNO position paper gives us a fascinating view of the 'afterlife' and tells us that none of the options we currently have will be an acceptable substitute for the IANA free pool from the ETNO perspective. It also tells us that we should abandon regional policy while at the same time keeping the current bottom-up policy process. This puzzles me. The one reason I could find in the entire paper why ETNO does not like 2007-08 is that it does not like the idea of a market. Neither do I. But 2007-08 is not about a market. It is a fallacy to think that any of us can either create a market or prevent one from being created. That is particularly so in an environment that will have global demand and (potentially) supply. 2007-08 is about staying relevant in an environment where a market evolves. I am fully aware that an evolving market will bring all sorts of interest, not in the last place from regulators. But it's not the regulators we should fear; letting it all slip through our hands is what we should worry about. Creating a transfer policy shows that we as a community can be part of a solution and show good stewardship, not just part (and cause) of the problem. People who are part of the solution will have a seat at the table - the people who merely caused the problem will not. Inaction is not a sign of good stewardship. So we need to be seen doing something, preferably something that will make a difference. So let's consider the alternatives: either we enable transfers or we prevent running out of IPv4 space. I can come up with a policy proposal for that as well - I'm positive you're going to like it even less than this one. If we would only allow justification for new v4 allocations to be based on servers and network infrastructure and not on 'eyeballs' we'd see our consumption rate evaporate overnight and the IANA free pool will last us at least a decade longer, while at the same time forcing the 'eyeballs' to move to IPv6. Think that's a better idea? Personally, I think not. I would urge ETNO to become part of this discussion and work with the community in our prized bottom-up policy process, rather than setting limits to what can and can not be discussed an not coming up with solutions themselves. I thank you for your time and look forward to your responses. Best, Remco van Mook (no hats)

4 4

A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
by Brian Nisbet 03 Jun '08

03 Jun '08

Afternoon, First off let me say that I am broadly in agreement with 2008-03, but I wished to make clear my thoughts on the incompatibility of the two proposals in the subject. I see 2008-03 as an exercise in fairness, a way to evenly distribute the last few /8s, rather than reaching a point where, particularly, AfriNIC and LACNIC need more addresses and find there to be none. However it strikes me that this policy is completely incompatible with 2007-09. If both policies were introduced then I can easily envisage a scenario where a bigger RIR uses up its /8, then starts to nibble away at the remaining addresses of those who will be slower to allocate their space, ie AfriNIC and LACNIC, thus defeating the purpose of fairness that I see inherent in 2008-03. The worse case scenario here, for the less developed RIRs at least, is that they may see very little of that last /8. I realise that many people have different views of the impetus behind 2008-03, but I can only view it through my eyes, so apologies if anyone feels I'm attributing motive where there is none. Regards, Brian.

7 15

RE: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
by Raul Echeberria 02 Jun '08

02 Jun '08

Michael: I disagree with you. RIR YES would need a policy for doing what you are suggesting. In fact, the policy proposed is a particular case of what you are suggestign. When there are only 5 /8s IANA ask all the RIRs what would be your future (short term) needs. And obviously the answer would be "At least one /8". Raúl At 06:59 a.m. 01/06/2008, michael.dillon(a)bt.com wrote: > > I am curious about other situation. > > Suppose that IANA allocates the last 2 /8s to the RIR A and > > one day later IANA receives a request from the RIR B that is > > running out of > > IPv4 addresses while the RIR A has (at least) 2 /8s. > >I don't think that IANA would ever do this because it would be >an incredibly stupid thing to do. Since I have never heard IANA >being accused of gross incompetence before, I have to believe >that when they receive that request from RIR A, they will ask all >the other RIRs about how many addresses they need before allocating >anything. In fact, I expect IANA to do this well before the last >2 /8 blocks. Then, after consulting all RIRs, I expect IANA to >publish their intentions and ask for comments before allocating >any blocks. > >This is just good business practice and I don't think that the RIRs >need to write policies which tell IANA to do this. > >--Michael Dillon > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1474 >- Release Date: 30/05/2008 07:44 a.m.

2 1

2007-08 review phase comments
by Kelaidi Christina 29 May '08

29 May '08

Dear colleagues ETNO's recently submitted a contribution, titled "IP Addressing in a post IPv4 World-Principles", to the RIPE address-policy-wg mailing list (available also to the ETNO web site, http://www.etno.be/Default.aspx?tabid=2058). This contribution provides an analysis on why, according to ETNO Members, any emerging marketplace should not determine IPv4 address exhaustion management. Quoting some basic arguments from the abovementioned contribution, ETNO believes that it is the successful bottom-up processes that keep the Internet community from being engaged in discussions regarding intervention or new models of governmental control and therefore it is the Internet community that should take all the appropriate measures in order to adhere to the current governance model. Facilitating a market based on the principle that attaches an intrinsic "value" to an IP address would engage competition authorities, policymakers and will raise legal issues. This should be carefully considered before introducing policies that will facilitate a market. Therefore, ETNO has some strong concerns regarding the possible impacts of the introduction of a transfer option or an open market option. This does not mean that ETNO fails to recognise the possibility that future transactions that will involve transfers of IP addresses between entities for profit. It means that internet community will need to carefully consider the implications of assisting such a process, taking as a starting point that the Internet community wants to preserve the current internet governance bottom-up processes. If a market emerges, future developments relating to IPv4 addresses must not undermine the viability of the Internet. Therefore based on the above, ETNO members could not support the 2007-08 Policy Proposal, Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues WG.

5 6

2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Filiz Yilmaz 27 May '08

27 May '08

PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2007-08 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. This proposal outlines a framework to migrate previously allocated IPv4 resources from one Local Internet Registry (LIR) to another LIR within the RIPE NCC Service Region. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft2007-08.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 15 April 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

7 16

2007-08 review phase comments
by Kinder, Klaus 27 May '08

27 May '08

Hello, > From: "Kelaidi Christina" kelaidi@localhost > Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:49:13 +0300 >From the LIR|de.telekom|point of view and as a member from ETNO, we explicitly endorse this position. Klaus Kinder Deutsche Telekom Technischer Service Central Services Local Internet Registry|de.telekom|

1 0

2007-08 review phase comments
by Kinder, Klaus 27 May '08

27 May '08

Hello, > From: "Kelaidi Christina" kelaidi@localhost > Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:49:13 +0300 >From the LIR|de.telekom|point of view and as a member from ETNO, we explicitly endorse this position. Klaus Kinder Deutsche Telekom Technischer Service Central Services Local Internet Registry|de.telekom|

1 0

Feedback from the WG chairs group on 2007-01
by Gert Doering 21 May '08

21 May '08

Hi APWG folks, we have received feedback from the Working Group Chairs Collective regarding the policy process on 2007-01: --- Dear APWG Chairs, The Working Group Chairs Collective has received your request to check consensus has been reached on policy proposal 2007-01. After reviewing the discussion, we could not reach consensus that significant changes between versions 1 and 2 of the document received sufficient attention within the Review and Last Call periods, and as such the proposal may not have received the appropriate levels of scrutiny. Due to lack of consensus within the group of Working Group Chairs, we ask that the proposal is reconsidered. --- This means that the proposal needs to re-enter review phase, and we'll ask you to closely look at it, and confirm that you're expressing support for the *latest revision* of the proposal. (Please don't start a big discussion now on the outcome - the policy process says that the group of all Working Group Chairs needs to agree that the process has been followed correctly. There were serious concerns, and thus there was no consensus on this - and the only way forward is to re-enter review phase, which we'll do shortly.) As I assume that we'll reach consensus again, work on the related proposals (2006-01 for IPv6 PI etc.) will continue in parallel. regards, Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 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

4 6

2008-02 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
by Ana Matic 16 May '08

16 May '08

PDP Number: 2008-02 Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2008-02 has been withdrawn. After RIPE 56 the proposer decided to withdraw this proposal due to insufficient support for it. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC

1 0

2008-01 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Name of Proposer)
by Ana Matic 16 May '08

16 May '08

PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Name of Proposer Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2008-01 has been withdrawn. After RIPE 56 the proposer decided to withdraw this proposal due to insufficient support for it. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-01.html Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC

1 0

2008-02 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
by Filiz Yilmaz 15 May '08

15 May '08

PDP Number: 2008-02 Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2008-02 has been extended until 16 May 2008. With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.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

10 11

IP Addressing in a post IPv4 World - Principles - Contribution from ETNO
by Kelaidi Christina 08 May '08

08 May '08

Dear colleagues ETNO (European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association) is representing 40 major companies from 34 European countries, providing electronic communications networks over fixed, mobile or personal communications systems. ETNO's primary purpose is to establish a constructive dialogue between its member companies and actors involved in the development of the European Information Society to the benefit of users. More information on ETNO can be found at: www.etno.be. ETNO has prepared and presented its Common Position regarding the exhaustion of the IPv4 address space to both RIPE and ICANN (CP082 2007/10). This Expert Contribution on "IP Addressing in a post IPv4 World - Principles" provides initial thoughts to the questions asked of ETNO with regard to the principle that there marketplace should not be a determination of IPv4 address exhaustion management. ETNO continues to develop its thoughts on this issue. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues (NANI) WG Chairperson ETNO Expert Contribution IP Addressing in a post IPv4 World - Principles 1. Introduction The IP addressing community asked ETNO to make more precise and complement its position regarding the Post IPv4 World, specifically with respect to its stated principle of "no markets". That is, the time when IPv4 addresses are no longer available from the Internet's Regional Internet Registries in the way (volume and quality) they are today. It is now well-understood that the globally available pool of IPv4 addresses will be depleted at some future point. For the purposes of this paper ETNO uses the timeframe of 2010-2012. ETNO has previously urged the community to adopt a basic set of principles guiding policy development, allocation and processes regarding IP addressing in that context and that remains an important issue for ETNO. ETNO's members also feel strongly about the IP addressing environment in the period after the remaining free pool is allocated from the five RIRs. This paper identifies some assumptions regarding that environment and establishes some principles (based on those assumptions) for management of the IPv4 address space in the period following exhaustion of the free pool. In particular, it urges that due emphasis is placed on IPv6 implementation, and that fairness and transparency in any activities relating to IPv4 addresses which seek to extend the availability of IPv4 addresses is of paramount importance. 2. Assumptions ETNO asserts that the following statements are fundamental to understanding the IPv4 addressing environment in the next ten years. * The available free pool of "allocatable" IPv4 addresses will run out - quite likely by 2012. * The existing IPv4 network will continue to operate for many decades to come. * There will still be demand for IPv4 addresses. * After the available pool of IPv4 addresses is exhausted, needs (even limited) will continue to appear that are provided with other options (e.g. the widespread deployment of NAT -- even if this could lead to extra costs and impact on the development of some services). * The only long-term solution to the "unavailability" of IPv4 addresses is the widespread adoption and deployment of IPv6 infrastructure, transport and client services. 3. ETNO Principles Underpinning any future activity with regard to the use and management of IPv4 addresses is the fact that the stability of the Internet must be maintained. In support of the above statement, and the previously stated assumptions, ETNO believes that the fundamental principles that should apply in a post-IPv4 world are fairness in access, transparency in management and that there must be no impact on existing operations and current allocations. 3.1 Identification of Legitimate Use A global mechanism for asserting the right to allocate, use and announce address blocks in the public Internet. A fundamental feature of a stable Internet in post 2012 is to be able to identify those parties who have genuine rights of use over IPv4 address prefixes. These rights of use need to be globally identified and could include the rights to allocate, use and advertise routes associated with IPv4 address prefixes. ETNO believes that a common, global approach to certifying the authentic allocation of address blocks should be adopted by the existing RIRs. Regional approaches to address block certification will be unworkable. Multiple, inconsistent approaches to address block certification would require the Internet's infrastructure to adopt more mechanisms than necessary to ensure that routing table entries were genuine and authentic. Having multiple approaches would result in unacceptable overhead in the routing infrastructure for the Internet. A global approach must be in place long before the period in which IPv4 depletion makes it significantly difficult to get address blocks from the RIRs. 3.2 Transparency in management Decisions on management (allocations and assignments must be public and transparent). To engender confidence and security post 2012 any decision regarding allocation or assignment must be done in a transparent, public way, and be consistent with policies enacted through the bottom-up processes in the RIRs. This transparency of this activity must apply globally. Any deficiencies in such policies need to be identified and action taken to ensure that they are harmonised and resolved by 2012. 3.3 Fair and Neutral Reuse Where IPv4 addresses are recovered from historic, experimental or IANA-reserved allocations, there needs to be a globally synchronized "recycling" of those blocks for Post-IPv4 allocation. Also, RIRs are further encouraged to more strictly reclaim allocated, but unused IPv4 address space. ETNO believes in a two tiered approach when it comes to IPv4 address recovery: a global IANA oriented process and regional RIR oriented processes. ETNO believes that IPv4 address space may be recovered through the examination of historic, experimental and IANA-reserved allocations. In these cases the redistribution of this address space must be fair, neutral and global. Global fairness requires that the IPv4 addresses recovered in this way are available to all users globally based on the existing justification models for allocation from IANA to RIRs. In particular, just as IANA and RIRs announce allocation of address blocks to the RIRs, so should the recovery, for future use, of address blocks be advertised. Furthermore, ETNO would like to encourage the RIRs to put still greater effort in to the reclaiming of allocated, but unused IPv4 address space. Such unused address space could e.g. result from LIRs that ceased to exist - or do not respond to any inquiries by the RIR any longer at least - or from mergers between LIRs. RIRs are also invited to seriously consider the incentives that could be provided to operating LIRs to consider returning unused address space by e.g. a rebate on the membership fees. IPv4 address space reclaimed by such means is to be put back into the allocation pool of the respective RIR to be reallocated later, according to its regular allocation policies. ETNO believes that there is a lower limit to prefix length for such recovery of IPv4 address space, though. IANA and the RIRs should make no attempt to recover for future use historic, experimental and IANA-reserved allocations where the prefix length of the allocated space is longer than the minimum allocation size for RIRs. Likewise, RIRs - in collaboration with LIRs - should make no attempt to recover (parts of) allocations where the prefix length of the allocated space is longer than the minimum allocation size for LIRs. 3.4 Self-Regulation of the Post-IPv4 Environment The allocation and of IPv4 addresses should - at all times - be guided and regulated by the bottom-up processes in place in the existing Regional Internet Registries. In a post 2012 environment, ETNO believes that the current bottom up stakeholder approach to manage the use of IPv4 public addresses should be maintained. No intervention is needed or desired by the industries who utilize and manage IPv4 addresses. This includes regional and sovereign entities as well as those treaty organizations or economic coalitions who might hope to affect IPv4 utilization for local or regional advantage - regardless of historical circumstance. 3.5 No Connection between IPv4 and IPv6 The environment for the allocation of IPv6 addressing must remain separate from the environment that manages the Post-IPv4 World. While there can be no doubt that IANA and the RIRs will continue to play an important role in both IPv4 and IPv6 in the future, ETNO believes that the environments are separate and distinguishable. In particular, decisions and policies regarding the allocation of IPv4 addresses to an organization, provider or user should not affect - in any material way - their eligibility for IPv6 address space. Similarly, an organization with IPv6 address space in the Post-IPv4 World has no inherent right to IPv4 address space - except under the existing, bottom-up processes that already guide IPv4 allocations to organizations and LIRs globally. ETNO has identified the following aspects that need to be factored into any discussion. 4. Post 2012 Environment Two broad options that might exist in the post 2012 IPv4 environment that could assist in extending the continued assignment of IPv4 addresses have been identified , namely * reclamation and reissue, and * transfer. In discussing each of the options, ETNO has considered the implications on a number of different levels. These include the entities involved such as the Local Internet registries, Regional Internet Registries etc, the legal framework, both nationally and regionally, and the interaction that may exist between these levels. Reclamation/Release and Reissue Description Reclamation/Release and reissue requires proactive action to be undertaken, either by the RIRs or by LIRs. Independent of who undertakes the action, reclamation is based upon the identification of unused IPv4 address space returning to the RIR. If proactive action is undertaken by the RIRs, then it would be reclamation, and if the action was taken by the LIRs it would be release. No assumption is made as to what size of block may be reclaimed, other then to say it is likely to be smaller then that originally allocated, and therefore no assumption regarding the value of the size reclaimed is made. Issues For the RIRs to be proactive and to treat all allocations in an equitable manner a global coordinated and consistent approach is required. It is clear that there have been variances in approaches to reclamation, across the five RIRs, in both recent and in legacy allocations. Such an approach will need for the RIRs and their membership to decide on a higher priority than today on that activity. For the LIRs, reclamation will mean allowing some form of auditing to occur, either directly with the RIR perhaps undertaking an audit of the LIR. In either case the policies applied to already allocated addresses must remain stable. There should be recognition that not all address space that remains unassigned or unannounced is free for return to the RIR. Regarding the legacy space there is an unresolved issue concerning the legal basis on which the RIRs could take action to recover unused IP addresses without any contractual arrangement with the holders. Transfer Description With the term transfer we refer to the transfer of an IPv4 address block from one entity to another under contractual agreement between the two of them. Such an entity can be both, an LIR or an address space assignee, effectively creating four potential "classes" of transfers: - From one LIR to another - From one assignee to another - From an assignee to an LIR - From an LIR to an assignee of another LIR Any such assignee could already have obtained address space from "its" LIR according to the assignment policies, or might become an entirely new assignee as a result of the transfer. Issues Future arrangements to meet on-going demand ETNO believes that the existence of transfer would be a first step to the creation of a market. This first would be a fundamental change to the manner in which IPv4 addresses are currently managed. In order to consider the impact of the creation of market for IPv4 addresses the following issues should be considered: - RIRs have been authorised to provide Internet Number resources as a result of earlier decisions and the internet community has made substantial effort to ensure appropriate bottom-up processes that are open, transparent and equitable. This approach must be maintained. - Other Internet governance organisations (IETF, ICANN) in collaboration with RIRs, ensure the robustness, security and stability of the Internet, through bottom-up processes that involve all the community. - According to the Internet Best Current Practice RFC 2008 Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies for Internet Routing it is the Internet service environment and its continued operation which gives an IP address its intrinsic value. Address allocation and management policies for IP addresses that assume unrestricted address ownership have an extremely negative impact on the scalability of the Internet routing system and are almost certain to exhaust the scalability of the Internet routing system well before the ultimate exhaustion of the IPv4 address space. The recommendation is to formally add the "address lending" policy to the set of address allocation policies of the Public Internet. It is these successful bottom-up processes that keep the Internet community from being engaged in discussions regarding intervention or new models of governmental control and therefore it is the Internet community that should take all the appropriate measures in order to adhere to the current governance model. Facilitating a market based on the principle that attaches an intrinsic "value" to an IP address would engage competition authorities, policymakers and will raise legal issues. This should be carefully considered before introducing policies that will facilitate a market. Moreover, IP addresses are allocated according to RFC 2050 Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines "Initial allocation will not be based on any current or future routing restrictions but on demonstrated requirements."... "All IP address requests are subject to audit and verification by any means deemed appropriate by the regional registry. If any assignment is found to be based on false information, the registry may invalidate the request and return the assigned addresses back to the pool of free addresses for later assignment". Based on the above principle RIPE assigns addresses based on clearly defined criteria . There are also rules for the transfer of custodianship in all RIRs. Therefore if one entity sells an IP address to another, which is completely different than existing transfer of custodianship procedures, this directly implies that the assignment made is based on information that is not valid, since the entity that is selling the IP address did not make use for a specific purpose or the purpose no longer exists. Therefore according to existing policy principles this IP address space should be returned. One could also possibly argue that a transfer is very similar to a "reclamation/release and reissue" scheme - in the latter case the gaining LIR or assignee is "just" not yet known, but still to be determined by the usual allocation and assignment policies. However, this predetermination in the case of a transfer bears the possibility that the gaining LIR or assignee is allowed to jump the queue of other LIRs (and assignees "behind" them) waiting to get a new allocation - and by such would entirely distort the well established "first come, first served and based on needs" scheme. Ultimately as the worst case, the RIRs might even lose their capability to enforce the allocation and assignment policies in case the assumption that policies will always be correctly applied by all parties becomes null and void. Based on the above considerations, ETNO has some strong concerns regarding the possible impacts of the introduction of a transfer option or an open market option. This does not mean that ETNO fails to recognise the possibility that future transactions that will involve transfers of IP addresses between entities for profit. It means that internet community will need to carefully consider the implications of assisting such a process, taking as a starting point that the Internet community wants to preserve the current internet governance bottom-up processes. If a market emerges, future developments relating to IPv4 addresses must not undermine the viability of the Internet. Evolution ETNO believes that ensuring the continued availability of IPv4 addresses needs to exist as a global approach. As part of the global approach that would need to exist, it is imperative that the coherence of the internet is maintained. Underpinning the discussions is the principle that the viability is a major cornerstone that needs to be considered in discussing the options that exist.

1 0

Fwd: [address-policy-wg] Joking follow-up, second round
by Turchanyi Geza 04 May '08

04 May '08

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Turchanyi Geza <turchanyi.geza(a)gmail.com> Date: May 4, 2008 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Joking follow-up, second round To: Carlos Friacas <cfriacas(a)fccn.pt> Hello, On 5/2/08, Carlos Friacas <cfriacas(a)fccn.pt> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > > > > 3, My suggestion was at RIPE 55 (and in my previous letter): let's do > > something similar in case of IPv6 what we have done with IPv4. "pseudo" > > dynamic IPv6! (Which is rather static, BTW.) > > > > For ISPs i'm assuming it would be easier to use static allocations, > instead of managing pools. Adding records to public databases is something > separate... Please rememeber, that I also suggested a technical solution: calculate the IPv6 addresses (subnet) from the previously allocated IPv4 address of the DSL user! That means: if we are able to allocate IPv4 addresses in "pseudo dynamic" way (wich is rather static), then we will be able to allocate IPv6 networks roughly at the same way. > 4, It is possible to allocate even /48 for every DSL users, even with the > > "pseudo" dynamic IPv6 allocation mechanism, however, why should we do > > it? If > > an "anonym" DSL user could use the same amount of the address space than > > a > > RIPE registered DSL user then nobody will register its address space in > > the > > database! > > > > You're trying to draw a line to distinguish residential users from > enterprises, is that it? No. I try to draw a line between "light" service and "serious" one (Or: between "dummies" and "experts".) > 5, The IPv6 address space is huge, however, if we do not know who is using > > it then we will loose it soon. > > > > We should always be able to link a single IPv6 address to an LIR/ISP... It won't help, unfortunately. How many people live in Holland? How many SIM card (mobile phone contract) exist? Much more, than people... > 6, Therefore my suggestion was amends previous policies (what were fine > > for > > the "experts", knowing what an IP address is and what a subnet is). > > > > > 8, I also would prefer if the "anonym" DSL users would share a visible > > different address space than the registered one. If IANA would reserve a > > prefix (preferably a /16) for the "anonym" DSL (mobile, CATV, etc) > > users, > > then the RIRs could allocate big pools from this prefix to ISPs using > > different allocation criteria than for the "registered" IPv6 networks. > > Different allocation criteria also mean: sparser usage at the beginning. If we allocate an IPv6 subnet to each and every DSL costumer, very few of them will realy use it at the beginning. However, fast IPv6 transition is not possible without this "generosity". The suggested size of the "anonym" pool is depend on the number of costumers: a /36 for very larg ISPs (more than 15 million costumers), a /40 for medium ISPs, a /44 for smaller ISP-s (less than 1 million costumers) Yes, there are ISP-s serving more than 15-16 millions costumers! This is one of the reasons why I suggested the creation of a new type of reusable addresses, the AS-local IPv4 address pool! > Back to the AS-local IPv4 address space concept: > > > > > > > > Private address space have to be unique within a routing domain, > > AS-local > > address space is unique within the given Autonomous System. (A group of > > autonomous Systems might share > > > > even this address space, but this is the exception, and not the rule.) > > > > > > > > I do think that the AS-local address pool can be created as a > > collaborative > > effort. IANA, ISPs can lease address blocks for this pool. This is not > > trading, but still a reallocation! Any reallocation policy should allow > > creation of a common address pool! > > > > > > > > It is easier to allocate "automatic" and "anonym" IPv6 network for DSL > > users > > if we have a > > > > big enough, better routable IPv4 address pool, an AS-local address pool. > > > > > > > > Please read also my proposals: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-joke… > > > > > > > > and my presentation: ( > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes… > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Geza > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Joking follow-up, second round
by Turchanyi Geza 30 Apr '08

30 Apr '08

Hi, Many thank for your comments in the first round. I appreciated that most of you read my text and commented only after reading as a whole. Those who listened me at RIPE 55 had been in better position. Let me clarify some details: I fully agree that the final document should not use the term "dummy" and "expert". However, these words emphasize the difference between different class of users. 1, Actually an IP address of a DSL user is not in the RIPE database, expect in the very exceptional case when the DSL user have a fix IPv4 address, may be even a subnet. 2, There are many ways to allocate IPv6 network for DSL users; however, it is hopeless to create database entries for them. The reasons are not only technical, but political. With IPv4 most of the DSL users had pseudo-anonym IPv4 addresses, their contact details had been known only by their ISP (and by the police, eventually), and the ISP is not allowed at all to publish the user data in any open database. 3, My suggestion was at RIPE 55 (and in my previous letter): let's do something similar in case of IPv6 what we have done with IPv4. "pseudo" dynamic IPv6! (Which is rather static, BTW.) 4, It is possible to allocate even /48 for every DSL users, even with the "pseudo" dynamic IPv6 allocation mechanism, however, why should we do it? If an "anonym" DSL user could use the same amount of the address space than a RIPE registered DSL user then nobody will register its address space in the database! 5, The IPv6 address space is huge, however, if we do not know who is using it then we will loose it soon. 6, Therefore my suggestion was amends previous policies (what were fine for the "experts", knowing what an IP address is and what a subnet is). 7, I still propose a common policy: how to distinguish between an "anonym" DSL user and a "registered" one. My proposal is: an "anonym" DSL user should receive a minimum IPv6 allocation. In this case the "minimum" is one subnet (/64) or, if there are automatically usable subnets for special purpose then the minimum size might include those subnets. If a DSL user need more then should fill an address request, and registered. 8, I also would prefer if the "anonym" DSL users would share a visible different address space than the registered one. If IANA would reserve a prefix (preferably a /16) for the "anonym" DSL (mobile, CATV, etc) users, then the RIRs could allocate big pools from this prefix to ISPs using different allocation criteria than for the "registered" IPv6 networks. Back to the AS-local IPv4 address space concept: Private address space have to be unique within a routing domain, AS-local address space is unique within the given Autonomous System. (A group of autonomous Systems might share even this address space, but this is the exception, and not the rule.) I do think that the AS-local address pool can be created as a collaborative effort. IANA, ISPs can lease address blocks for this pool. This is not trading, but still a reallocation! Any reallocation policy should allow creation of a common address pool! It is easier to allocate "automatic" and "anonym" IPv6 network for DSL users if we have a big enough, better routable IPv4 address pool, an AS-local address pool. Please read also my proposals: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-joke… and my presentation: ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes… Many thanks for your attention, Geza

1 0

Joking follow-up
by Turchanyi Geza 30 Apr '08

30 Apr '08

Hi, Is there anyone experienced in creating RIPE policy documents AND ready to help me to create a new one? (Or: two new ones). In the previous RIPE meeting I gave a talk ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes…) and attached a copy of a draft-RFC ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-joke… ) I realized that some of my ideas relate to policies, other relate to technologies. As there is a separate policy working group now, I try to create a policy document as well – and need some help to formalize and may be finalize, correct my ideas. Highlights: 1, AS-local IPv4 address pool creation and maintenance 2, IPv6 address pool and address allocation for dummies Details1 (AS-local IPv4): The drafts ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-joke…) gives more details, please find a short summary below. One of our responses to IPv4 address scarcity was the creation of "IPv4 private address pool" in 1994-1996. However: The scope of private addresses is not defined well; The private address pool size is too small for large ISPs; Network Address Translation should be in use at every routing domain borders. AS-local IPv4 pool should be similar but a little bit different compared to private address pool: Uniquely use in every Autonomous system (or collaborative group of ASs) Different set of IPv4 addresses (different scope!); Mechanism to add and revoke address-blocks by contributors to this pool should be implemented (in order to create a contribution-friendly atmosphere); Network Address Translation should be applied only if the destination address is outside of the originator Autonomous System boundary. The introduction of AS-local addresses would help us not only maintain our present IPv4 service, however, support the IPv4->IPv6 transition. (See below) Details2 - IPv6 address pool and address allocation for dummies: As everybody knows, there are well defined IP address allocation policies for fixed, static networks, like an University campus, or an enterprise network. These sites should have administrative and technical contact persons, the "tech" knows what an IP address is, the "admin" pays the bill, and both person is in the database of the Regional Registry. However, a huge part of the IP address space is used differently: both the "tech" and the "admin" work for the ISP, and the actual costumer of the IP address might not even know that he/she is using an IP address. (is a dummy costumer, only in this respect). This is the typical case in DSL environment today with IPv4. The introduction of IPv6 won't change too much. Shall we treat and regulate the IP address allocation for the "dummies" in the same way as we do it for the "experts"? I do not think so. In fact, we can not. Is there any policy for the "dummies"? I was unable to find it. If you have 30 millions "dummy" DSL (or cable modem, or mobile-phone) users how would you provide IP addresses for them? Of course, global addresses are the best. However, as there are not enough global addresses, some tricks should be applied. Common practice: allocate IP addresses dynamically. (BTW: dynamic allocation also mean pseudo-anonym and temporary allocation.) Dynamic allocation saves addresses considerably. However: If only 50% of the costumers connect at peak time today, tomorrow this may increase to 60%. That means: the need for addresses increased 20% while the costumer base is still the same. Using non-global, reusable IP addresses still does not solve all the problems. 30 millions is much more than the total size of the private address pool. Even if the ISP would assume, that not all users connect to the network at the same time, it might not help for long time as the number of costumer being on-line at peak time might increase. AND: using private addresses also means loosing functions. If your computer has a private address, you can not provide any services outside the private address domain (this stops using a couple of popular games, etc) This restriction is unavoidable consequence of using any kind of reusable addresses. However: the private address domain is very restricted. By using AS-local addresses, we would have a larger routing domain and fewer restrictions.) If we create an AS-local address pool, then it is possible to allocate reusable IP addresses in a more stable manner. This allocation is still a dynamic allocation, however, rather stable AND easy to couple IPv6 allocation with it. However, if we allocate IPv6 networks for every costumer that use dynamic IPv4 allocation today then most of them won't use for a while the IPv6 stuff. AND this IPv6 allocation will be pseudo-anonym, not directly reflected in the RIPE (or other RIRs) database. Therefore I suggest that ISP-s should have a dedicated IPv6 address pool for "dynamic IPv6" allocations and these address pool should be easily recognizable. (This was the reason why I proposed in my talk at RIPE 55, that all "dynamic IPv6" pool should be allocated from an IANA dedicated /16 prefix) The size of the "dynamic IPv6" network should be the minimal one: /64. If there are mechanism that allows automatic use a subnet, than a little bit bigger size might be allowed (max /60), however if /56 or /48 would be allowed than there wont be any more interest to have a RIPE registered network instead a "dynamic" one, therefore my suggestion is to declare in the policy that a "dynamic" IPv6 allocation should be as narrow as possible. OK. Please help me to rewrite the above idea to formulate policies. Thanks, Geza Turchanyi INFO-C

6 7