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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
by Rob Evans 09 Apr '14

09 Apr '14

> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01 Overall I think this is a good thing, but I wonder if there is a reason for leaving 5.4 (minimum sub-allocation size) as-is? If we open the door to transfer prefixes smaller than a /24, should sub-allocation of them be prevented? The routing side of me, of course, might consider the alternative of clamping the transfers at /24 too, but perhaps that should just be left for consenting adults to negotiate between themselves. Cheers, Rob

11 26

report address policy violation
by Tom Norda 08 Apr '14

08 Apr '14

Hi: I know a RIPE member with an unused ipv4 /20 block not used in the last 2 years and i'm wondering if that's a RIPE community policy violation. I checked https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/current-ripe-documents/ripe-policiesbut i still have doubts if it is accepted or not. Best regards

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Tore Anderson 01 Apr '14

01 Apr '14

* Marco Schmidt > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 I think it makes sense to allow PI transfers, at least when taking into account that we already do so for PA. So I'm generally supportive of this proposal A few comments though: 1) The new policy says: «Changes to the original criteria must be documented in the RIPE Registry, or the assignment will no longer be considered valid». What exactly are the implications of this requirement? I am assuming that the «RIPE Registry» is not the RIPE DB; as the original criteria isn't documented in the RIPE DB to begin with. As I understand it, any criteria that somehow involves «operating a network» is a valid assignment criteria (cf. section 3.0.3), with no requirement for specifics. I'm thinking that it might be better to simply say something along the lines of an assignment being valid for as long as it is being used according to the policy, rather than worrying about the «original criteria» and how it possibly have changed. Most networks evolve and change over time; it wouldn't surprise me if a majority of assignments are now being used differently than originally documented in their associated assignment request form. That's not a bad thing though, is it? 2) Editorial: The new section 6.4 «Transfers of PI space» appears to me to be pretty much a carbon copy of section 5.5 «Transfers of Allocations» with a tiny bit changed here and there. Rather than duplicating all that text, would it not be better to move 5.5 out of section 5, and re-title and generalise it so that it applies equally to PI and PA? 3) The new section 6.4 speaks of «Non-approved transfers». Under which circumstances would a transfer not be approved, exactly? Do we really need this language anymore? (I'm regretting that 2013-03 didn't do away with it already. Oh well...) Tore

2 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
by Erik Bais 01 Apr '14

01 Apr '14

> You can find the full proposal at: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01 Support +1 Erik Bais

1 0

2014-02 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Marco Schmidt 31 Mar '14

31 Mar '14

Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-606, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 29 April 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
by Sascha Luck 29 Mar '14

29 Mar '14

All, On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 02:18:44PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: >You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01 > >We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to I don't think this proposal takes into account operational reality. The fact of the matter is, that there is a lower limit to what allocation size is operationally useful to a LIR (unless the routing community is prepared to accept /32s in the DFZ). Add to that the extra complexity of reverse delegating </24 zones that is mentioned elsewhere in the thread and the likely outcome is a mess. I think the better way to do this would be to: - retain the /22 min-alloc size until the last /8 is gone - possibly change the *transfer* policies to allow transfers of /24< x </22 - implement something like 2014-01 but with a min-alloc size of /24 when that happens - review after a year(?) with a view to whether any smaller allocation size is actually *operationally useful* to LIRs I do not want to go back to the not-so-long-ago days of having to concoct fiction in order to get a useful amount of resources out of the NCC. rgds, Sascha Luck

3 6

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the MinimumAllocation Size for IPv4)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 28 Mar '14

28 Mar '14

Hello -- I am neither for nor against the policy. I do have some statistics from our business that may be relevant to the decision. Between May of 2012 when we saw the first small transaction, and today, we have received exactly 50 requests for transfers of LESS than a /22 within the RIPE region. One of these was for only 1 IP, but the most common request would be for a /24. My opinion is that this shows there is some demand for an allocation size smaller than a /22. The requests came from all over Europe, but the countries most represented would be Poland, the UK, the Netherlands, Italy, and the Ukraine, for whatever reason. Many countries are represented at least once. Best Regards, Sandra Brown IPv4 Market Group

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
by poty＠iiat.ru 28 Mar '14

28 Mar '14

Hello, There would be always the difference between PI distribution and PA. As pointed by Janos - there is always contractual relationship between a PI user and a LIR or RIR, who covers some "side" mechanic. In case of PA it is more like selling - after an address block transfer the only responsible party is the new "owner". Regards, Vladislav >> Besides, one of the two stated reasons for having the minimum >> sub-allocation size (<[/24] is the smallest prefix length that can be >> reverse delegated>) is quite simply false, given RFC 2317 > > Well, technically speaking this is obviously feasible. However, as I > pointed it out on the DSN WG mailing list, in case of transfers, where > the "buyer" normally does not wish to have any further business > relationship with the "seller" once the transfer is completed, this > solution may be unattractive. The fact that the "seller" has to > provide appropriate DNS services (i.e. in accordance with > BCP20/RFC2317) to the "buyer" for an _indefinite_ period of time, is > probably one more deterrent to transferring such a small amount of > addresses. I think it would be reasonable to expect that if 2014-01 passes, the NCC will respond by allowing direct classless delegation of PA blocks, just like is already done for PI. If so, what you're describing here shouldn't be a problem. Tore

1 0

A question
by Nigel Titley 26 Mar '14

26 Mar '14

Anyone care to cast an opinion on the following question: The company I work for is about to split off one of its country operations into a separate company. There are various blocks in use from various allocations to the parent company. Is it permissible to split a PA block and transfer part of it to the new company in order to avoid having to renumber the customers? My reading of the transfer policy is that it is possible (if reprehensible), but I thought I'd just like to check with the great and the good to see what opinion is. Nigel

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 31, Issue 15
by Lu Heng 26 Mar '14

26 Mar '14

Hi Nigel: My suggestion was keep block in one piece and lease the block to the local companies(if legal requires). because put it back in one piece later on might be a problem and if there is no real transaction involved, less specific block are always better than smaller block for routing reasons. my two cents. On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:52 AM, <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. A question (Nigel Titley) > 2. Re: Input request for the PI Transfer policy (Elvis Velea) > 3. Re: A question (Elvis Daniel Velea) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:25:24 +0000 > From: Nigel Titley <nigel(a)titley.com> > Subject: [address-policy-wg] A question > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <5331BC04.1020401(a)titley.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Anyone care to cast an opinion on the following question: > > The company I work for is about to split off one of its country > operations into a separate company. There are various blocks in use from > various allocations to the parent company. Is it permissible to split a > PA block and transfer part of it to the new company in order to avoid > having to renumber the customers? My reading of the transfer policy is > that it is possible (if reprehensible), but I thought I'd just like to > check with the great and the good to see what opinion is. > > Nigel > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:35:27 +0200 > From: Elvis Velea <elvis(a)velea.eu> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Input request for the PI Transfer > policy > To: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <5331BE5F.8020108(a)velea.eu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi Gert, > > > On 25/03/14 15:26, Gert Doering wrote: > > [...] >> There might be other reasons as well.. It's just a feeling that limiting >> at /24 is the right thing to do. On the other hand, while writing this >> e-mail I've been having second thoughts on each of the paragraphs and >> reasons :-) >> It's good to have the arguments out, so we can think through them - thanks! > I tried to play the devil's advocate role this time. As said, even when > writing all my con's I realized these aren't too strong. > > As you already know, I'm in favor of not adding any limitations in > policy. I was just trying to voice all the possible con's. > >> >> Gert Doering >> -- no hats > cheers, > elvis > -- blue hat to protect against the sun :-) > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:52:21 +0200 > From: Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis(a)v4escrow.net> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] A question > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <5331D065.5040402(a)v4escrow.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hi Nigel, > > As far as I understand from the policy, you can transfer a block that > contains customer assignments. The size of the block that you would > transfer can not be (currently) smaller than a /22. > > So, I would say that you have two options: > - first - where you use the transfer policy and transfer parts of an > allocation to an other LIR (even if it's yours, in a different country). > In this case, the IPs transferred can not be again transferred for two > years to an other LIR. > - second - where you sell to a separate company (parts of) your > infrastructure (and maybe associated customers) and then you would use > the Mergers and Acquisitions procedure. In this case, the transfer > policy would not be used and the IPs transferred to the new company > could then be again transferred using the transfer policy. > > cheers, > elvis > > On 25/03/14 19:25, Nigel Titley wrote: >> Anyone care to cast an opinion on the following question: >> >> The company I work for is about to split off one of its country >> operations into a separate company. There are various blocks in use from >> various allocations to the parent company. Is it permissible to split a >> PA block and transfer part of it to the new company in order to avoid >> having to renumber the customers? My reading of the transfer policy is >> that it is possible (if reprehensible), but I thought I'd just like to >> check with the great and the good to see what opinion is. >> >> Nigel >> >> > > > -- > <http://v4escrow.net> > > > Elvis Daniel Velea > > > Chief Business Analyst > > Email: elvis(a)V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> > US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 > EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 > > Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and > delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited. > >

1 0