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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Sascha Lenz 28 Feb '13

28 Feb '13

Hi all, Am 28.02.2013 um 14:04 schrieb "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt(a)ripe.net>: > > Dear Colleagues > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/ > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net> before 28 March 2013. > even though i actually liked the intention of the current policy text, there seems to be no choice here but to support this change due to the lack of a certification policy. I don't really want to go there again for a while. So, support. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect

2 1

2013-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Marco Schmidt 28 Feb '13

28 Feb '13

Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/ We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net> before 28 March 2013. Regards Marco Schmidt on behalf of the Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 Last Call for Comments (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)
by Gert Doering 27 Feb '13

27 Feb '13

Dear Working Group, On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 02:08:15PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The proposal described in 2012-09, "Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments", is now in its > Concluding Phase. > > The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs have declared that consensus for > the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call. well, technically we have not yet formally declared that (just in coordination e-mails between the WG chairs and the RIPE NCC PDO), so I now need to do so :-) 2012-09 saw a high amount of "support!" and "+1" voices in discussion phase, and no opposition, so moving to review phase was straightforward (there was a side-track discussion about "what is a month?" but that did not lead to changes in the text, or stated opposition). In review phase, things started slowly because we (chairs) didn't remind the WG that supporting voices do not carry over from the discussion phase. After I did that, we received 16 clear voices of support, and no opposing voices. So, we have quite strong consensus, and thus moved to Last Call. In Last Call, supporting voices do not need to be repeated - this is the phase where "silence is consent". But if you disagree with our interpretation of the comments in discussion or review phase, or with the propsal in general, now is the time to speak up. Gert Doering -- Address Policy WG Chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

Policy update request on certification of transferred IPv4 allocations
by Andrew de la Haye 27 Feb '13

27 Feb '13

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, Based on recent discussions on the RIPE Address Policy WG mailing list, the RIPE NCC is now seeking policy related action from the RIPE community with regards to clear guidelines on how it should proceed with certifying transferred IPv4 allocations. It has recently come to our notice, via two of the policy authors, that the original intention (in 2007) of the sentence "Re-allocated blocks will be signed to establish the current allocation owner" was that the transferred block *must* be signed *after* the transfer in order to completely establish holdership. This sentence can be found under section 5.5 of "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-582#Transfers-of-Allocations Because the RIPE community provided guidance saying that certification should be an opt-in system, the RIPE NCC built an RPKI Certification system based on this opt-in notion, therefore it is not currently possible for the RIPE NCC to issue certificates without the resource holder initiating the process. Therefore, the RIPE NCC's interpretation and implementation of this specific sentence has been: Registration Services verifies and reflects the change in holdership of the re-allocated blocks by updating the database objects and internal records following the transfer. Any certificates that had been attached to these number resources before the transfer automatically become invalid/revoked due to the holdership change. The transfer recipient can then request a new certificate for the address space and the RIPE NCC will proceed to sign these resources to establish the current allocation holder. Therefore, the RIPE NCC does not make certification of any resources mandatory. As the sentence in section 5.5 of "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" is open to interpretation, the RIPE NCC is seeking representative(s) from the RIPE community to submit an update to ripe-582 that will replace this sentence with more accurate and appropriate wording or perhaps remove it completely. Kind regards, Andrew de la Haye Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC

17 24

2012-06 Proposal Accepted (Revert "Run Out Fairly")
by Emilio Madaio 27 Feb '13

27 Feb '13

Dear Colleagues Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE Document ripe-577, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 The updated RIPE document is ripe-582 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-582 Thank you for your input. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

3 2

2012-09 Last Call for Comments (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)
by Marco Schmidt 27 Feb '13

27 Feb '13

Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2012-09, "Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments", is now in its Concluding Phase. The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs have declared that consensus for the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 27 March 2013 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the co-Chairs of all RIPE Working Groups for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net before 27 March 2013. Regards Marco Schmidt on behalf of the Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 Discussion Period extended until 1 March 2013 (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources)
by Erik Bais 25 Feb '13

25 Feb '13

Hi Daniel, > We see it quite often. And the answer is that the sponsorships is rather an entry in some hidden RIPE db than a contract. When an end user is asked "Do you have a sponsoring LIR for this resource and if so, who is it?", the answer is usuallu " > We have no idea". And the only way to be certain is to send an email to the RIPE hostmasters. If you don't know, check the LIR Portal to see the registered PI spaces you hold there. For the customer, there is no requirement (if they really don't know.. ) and not get an invoice from some LIR, so it is very easy to just transfer the resources to another LIR and that way you are both sure ... > Let's say you do have the documents in the first situation. How do you know they are still valid? Yes, we used to be sponsor for this resource but how do we know that in RIPE:s point of view, we still are? Again, check the LIR portal for the registered PI resources under your LIR account. If there are company changes for the registered resources, inform the RIPE NCC that that is the case, send them the old info and the new info and if needed you will be requested additional paperwork of information. Typically, it is a 10 minute fix for a contact or address change. That is what it means to be a LIR, too many people see being an LIR as a way to get resources for themselves. We have customers that we provide RIPE Administration services for, they are an LIR themselves, but stay away from the actual administration or registration part. If an End-Customer wants a more formal registration service instead of a 'sponsoring LIR, could you do me a favor' kind of service, you should transfer the resources of that customer to your LIR within a blink of an eye ... Don't you think ? Publishing the information who the registration LIR is, doesn't fix the fact that information might not be correct. Go through the process of a PI transfer as an actual LIR and then decide if this is still something that is required. Regards, Erik Bais

2 1

2012-09 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)
by Emilio Madaio 25 Feb '13

25 Feb '13

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-09, "Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments", has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 25 February 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

20 22

Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 Discussion Period extended until 1 March 2013 (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources)
by Erik Bais 25 Feb '13

25 Feb '13

Peter makes some very good points here. If the End User doesn't know who their Sponsoring LIR is, there is nothing keeping them from transferring the resource to another LIR. You would be surprised how may LIR's are sponsoring PI space without any contract or charge to their customers of 8 years ago ... and those LIR's still keep paying the bill to RIPE. Last year I cleaned up an LIR of 25+ PI resources of former customers. If the LIR themselves is unaware of the situation or simply don't care and the customer never receives any invoice for resources. Who are we to decide to publish this information. The last argument, that it would make abuse easier ... /sigh. Being a sponsoring LIR has nothing to do with abuse management. Being an LIR has nothing to do with having a network or route packets. Being / running an LIR doesn't mean you have your own network .. nor does it say that you are an ISP .. or a hoster. You are running a resource registration office. Yes we register PI space for end-users, even if they are not consuming our network services. We charge end-users for that service, we provide RIPE with all the required paperwork and handle the PI request, but if someone is routing some "bad" packets on the IP's we registered for them in the past, why would it help abuse if someone knows who registered the PI space in the first place? It is not that we can put a null-route for the IP's or 'drop the BGP announcement' as they are not in our network. Perhaps the name 'Sponsoring LIR' is a bit tricky as it might give the impression it is for free. But registration of resources (PI space, AS numbers etc) is just like any other kind of registration services, it takes time to provide the service and we charge for the time. So, perhaps a bit longer story than what Peter said, but the result it the same. Not in favor for this policy. Regards, Erik Bais A2B Internet

1 0

Was : RE: 2012-09 - now : PDP 'I Agree discussion'
by Erik Bais 23 Feb '13

23 Feb '13

Hi Jan, >> It's an oddity of the PDP. I'm not sure if it serves a useful purpose >> because at the times when there are piles of proposals flying around (e.g. >> now), people end up getting jaded by the requirement for constant acks >> and me-toos. >Agree... is this painful enough that we need to change it? Looking at how the process currently goes, I don't think that changing this would make everyone his/her live so much easier. Personally I think doing it the way that we currently do it, might look a bit redundant, but it does provide clear consensus during all phases of the PDP. Typically we seem to be pretty easy to get on top of policies again if it is needed .. (just look at the simple email from one of the chairs to restate support in the current phase / or state of the proposal. ) How would you propose to change it if it would be changed ? Erik Bais

4 3