2014-04 new radical suggestions
Hi, While we were formulating the proposal 2014-04, we came up with a handful of other more radical alternatives too. We decided to leave them out of the initial proposal text, because of their controversial nature. We decided to instead present them to the discussion on the mailing list, which I'm doing now: OTHER RIRS The current policy for final /8 IPv4 assignments requires that the IPv6 address space is assigned by RIPE NCC. Assignments by other RIRs aren't accepted. Proposal 2014-04 does not change this oversight. I can see one snag, if IPv6 assignments from other RIRs were accepted: multi-national corporations would hoard "an automatic /22" from every RIR slightly more easily than the current policy allows. In that case I would also add policy text that would make sure that if the applicant already has a final /8 IPv4 assignment from some other RIR, they can't get one from RIPE. PROMOTE IPv6 USAGE Gert Doering wrote:
Historically it was put in there as an encouragement for "last /8" LIRs to "do something with IPv6"...
The something that the current policy encourages LIRs to do with IPv6: * register a block and forget about it To really promote IPv6 adoption, why not require final /8 applicants to demonstrate their IPv6 capability before being given the IPv4 address block? The simplest way I came up with would be to create a service mailbox under an IPv6 only sub-domain (e.g. hostmaster@v6only.ripe.net) and require that the applicants complete some steps of their process with this mailbox. This would verify that the applicant has access to IPv6 capable: * routing * DNS resolvers * authoritative DNS * SMTP servers ... and is not afraid to use them! Well, of course the applicant could be using someone else's mail system to complete those steps. I'm not sure if that matters. When the original policy was written, I guess the community felt that the global routing system was not ripe enough for these requirements. I would argue that the world should be ready now! There's only one RIR left that has more than 16 million IPv4 addresses in their free pool. There, that's two provocative radical suggestions for you, from -- Aleksi Suhonen / Axu TM Oy You say "potato", I say "closest-exit."
Hi Aleksi, a few comments inline: On 07/05/14 04:24, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
Hi,
While we were formulating the proposal 2014-04, we came up with a handful of other more radical alternatives too. We decided to leave them out of the initial proposal text, because of their controversial nature. We decided to instead present them to the discussion on the mailing list, which I'm doing now:
OTHER RIRS
The current policy for final /8 IPv4 assignments requires that the IPv6 address space is assigned by RIPE NCC. Assignments by other RIRs aren't accepted. Proposal 2014-04 does not change this oversight. and I agree that it should also be fixed. If you have IPv6 (no matter from where and which color it has) then you should be allowed to receive your /22.
I can see one snag, if IPv6 assignments from other RIRs were accepted: multi-national corporations would hoard "an automatic /22" from every RIR slightly more easily than the current policy allows. In that case I would also add policy text that would make sure that if the applicant already has a final /8 IPv4 assignment from some other RIR, they can't get one from RIPE.
that won't fly. other RIRs have different policies regarding their last /8 (APNIC's is the only one similar to RIPE's AFAIK). Some RIRs don't even have a /22 policy. And if someone needs IPv4 in the RIPE Region, getting the /22 should not be limited to the last /8 policy from an other region. That would be plain wrong.
PROMOTE IPv6 USAGE
Gert Doering wrote:
Historically it was put in there as an encouragement for "last /8" LIRs to "do something with IPv6"...
The something that the current policy encourages LIRs to do with IPv6:
* register a block and forget about it
To really promote IPv6 adoption, why not require final /8 applicants to demonstrate their IPv6 capability before being given the IPv4 address block? The simplest way I came up with would be to create a service mailbox under an IPv6 only sub-domain (e.g. hostmaster@v6only.ripe.net) and require that the applicants complete some steps of their process with this mailbox.
This would verify that the applicant has access to IPv6 capable: * routing * DNS resolvers * authoritative DNS * SMTP servers
... and is not afraid to use them!
Well, of course the applicant could be using someone else's mail system to complete those steps. I'm not sure if that matters. if you really want to go on that path, you may want to say that the LIRs which can receive their last /22 must have at least 4 IPv6 RIPEness stars. But I really think a lot of people will oppose to such an idea.
cheers, elvis -- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Business Analyst Email: elvis@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.
Hi Aleksi,
I can see one snag, if IPv6 assignments from other RIRs were accepted: multi-national corporations would hoard "an automatic /22" from every RIR slightly more easily than the current policy allows. In that case I would also add policy text that would make sure that if the applicant already has a final /8 IPv4 assignment from some other RIR, they can't get one from RIPE.
I have to point out that making our own policy dependent on policies in other regions is a dangerous thing to do. As Elvis has already pointed out not all regions have a final /8 policy. Lat's use ARIN as an example: They have adopted proposal 2008-5 (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_5.html) called 'Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment'. This is a needs-based policy where someone can get between a /28 and a /24 for e.g. dual-stack DNS servers, NAT64 etc. ARIN also has a waiting list for IPv4 requests (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_1.html), and a policy that returned IPv4 address space will be re-distributed as quickly as possible (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_6.html). If you go down this road, exactly which address blocks an organisation gets from ARIN will prohibit them from getting a /22 from RIPE NCC? And if you look at organisational structure it becomes even more complicated: what if a big corporation has subsidiaries in both the US and EU, and the US company gets address space from ARIN. Does that disqualify the EU company/LIR from getting address space? Remember: someone has to be able to implement the policies we create here! :) Cheers, Sander
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
If you go down this road, exactly which address blocks an organisation gets from ARIN will prohibit them from getting a /22 from RIPE NCC? And if you look at organisational structure it becomes even more complicated: what if a big corporation has subsidiaries in both the US and EU, and the US company gets address space from ARIN. Does that disqualify the EU company/LIR from getting address space?
Remember: someone has to be able to implement the policies we create here! :)
I was about to post something very similar to this, but then you stole the show. ;) Very well put, I agree completely, although I think it's a bit of a mess that we have regional separation of IP registries in the first place, this isn't something that's fixed or mitigated by making policies dependent on what I consider unpredictable remote social dynamics. -- Jan
participants (4)
-
Aleksi Suhonen -
Elvis Daniel Velea -
Jan Ingvoldstad -
Sander Steffann