- 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 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

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