The reasoning is quite simple - we wanted the scope of the proposal to be minimal and make it avoid all the really hard bits because getting consensus on the basic premise is already hard enough. You will also find that the proposal does not include PI, IPv6 or ASNs. So it's only about allocated IPv4 PA space that is not in current use anywhere. Best, Remco -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: donderdag 18 september 2008 14:25 To: Filiz Yilmaz Cc: policy-announce@ripe.net; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) what is the reasoning behind

Such address space must not contain any block that is assigned to an End User.

i am confused by two aspects o it's ok if some of it is assigned to another lir, but not a user? o but i can't transfer to mary space with customers, why? randy 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

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, Gert Doering wrote:

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:39:48 +0200 From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Cc: policy-announce@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

Hi fellow APWG members,

as the comment period for the v3 of 2007-08 is nearing its end (one week left), please send your comments about it to the list.

Do you want to see this proposal implemented?

Do you absolutely refuse this proposal, and any movement in that direction?

Do you agree, in general, with the underlying idea, but need to see changes in the specifics before this can become policy?

Perhaps the only answer is a strong ''maybe'' (yes i am sorry). I think that the growth of the routing table and bureaucracy are arguments opposing the proposal, although it could make v4 yet last a little bit longer, but why would a LIR volenteer to return v4 space in a time when yet so many v6 compatibility issues are not yet solved. Perhaps i am wrong but i think it makes (f.ex routing) a lot more hazy.. Rgds, Ray

If there are no comments, it's a bit hard for the chairs to judge whether we have consensus or not...

Gert Doering, APWG chair

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 02:19:02PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:

...

PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources

Dear Colleagues,

The text of the policy proposal 2007-08 has been revised based on the community feedback. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today. As a result a new Review Phase is set for the proposal.

You can find the full proposal at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html

and the draft RIPE Document at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft2007-08-v3.html

We encourage you to read the revised proposal and the draft document, and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 16 October 2008.

Regards

Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

-- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645

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

************************************************************ Raymond Jetten     Phone: +358 3 41024 139 Network Engineer Fax: +358 3 41024 199 Elisa Oyj / Network Management GSM: +358 45 6700 139 Hermiankatu 3A              raymond.jetten@elisa.fi FIN-33720, TAMPERE          http://www.elisa.fi ************************************************************

Hi, On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 02:06:37PM +0100, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:

...

as the comment period for the v3 of 2007-08 is nearing its end (one week left), please send your comments about it to the list.

2007-08 <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html> is a dishonest policy. It enables buying and selling of IP address blocks without saying anything about how this relates to the statement in RIPE-421 (The IPv6 policy) which says:

It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered freehold property.

Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents into account? "Different circumstances".

2007-08 should be rejected because no consensus has been formed and

This is exactly the point of a "v3" of this document: take into account previous discussions and comments, and try finding a consensus on the reworked document. The argument "I reject this version because no consensus was formed on a previous version" is not a very useful contribution, in itself - if you have specific issues with *v3* (or your concerns about v1 and v2 are still un-addressed), please voice them. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 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

On 08/10/2008 4:44, "michael.dillon@bt.com" <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:

...

...

It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered freehold property.

Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents into account? "Different circumstances".

Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not make any distinction between the two versions of IP.

Actually, the first sentence to that document starts with the words: "This document defines registry policies for the assignment and allocation of globally unique IPv6 addresses". It is very clear that it doesn't apply to IPv4. The fact that IPv4 is almost completely allocated while IPv6 is almost completely empty seems relevant to me. I'd like to think that the policy took appropriate account of the circumstances. Regards, Leo Vegoda

Leo and all, It doesn't matter if the wording only applies to IPv6 either. The same principals apply as Michael correctly stated them. Making IPv6 OR IPv4 address space a liquid asset is a huge error in judgment. Such would only make RIR's and LIR's IP address casinos. Leo Vegoda wrote:

On 08/10/2008 4:44, "michael.dillon@bt.com" <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:

...

...

...

It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered freehold property.

Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents into account? "Different circumstances".

Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not make any distinction between the two versions of IP.

Actually, the first sentence to that document starts with the words: "This document defines registry policies for the assignment and allocation of globally unique IPv6 addresses". It is very clear that it doesn't apply to IPv4.

The fact that IPv4 is almost completely allocated while IPv6 is almost completely empty seems relevant to me. I'd like to think that the policy took appropriate account of the circumstances.

Regards,

Leo Vegoda

Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

Since this statement is very much obviously in the context of IPv6, why should it mention IPv4, or point out that "differently from the rest of the document, we're only talking about IPv6 here"?

The IPv6 policy document was a global project so it reflects the overall basis on which an IPv6 policy was started. In other words, that statement about addresses not being freehold property refers to IPv4 and says that IPv6 is just the same, not freehold property which an organization can buy or sell.

I don't see a "huge lack of consensus".

Count the messages in the Address Policy WG archive discussing 2007-08 since June. That is what I consider to be a huge lack of consensus.

Then I did see one individual waving the ETNO flag (which has no significance to RIPE policy processes, btw - it's "individuals taking part in the discussion" not "I represent a bigger organization that you"), fundamentally opposing anything, without being willing to start a constructive dialogue or listen to the proposer's arguments.

Which is one of the big problems with the ETNO folks - they brew their statements outside the RIPE processes, and since the statements are already finished when they are presented here, they can't adjust their position. Which is not the way to constructively go about changing policies.

This is not very constructive dialog and I am disturbed to see a WG chair writing this kind of stuff. A. I did not wave the ETNO flag. I merely repeated one point that ETNO had raised, along with one point from Eric Schmidt, one from Jay Daley, and one from Per Heldal. All of these points come from the message of Sander Steffann which he posted on June 13th and for which I provided the URL in my first message. B. When you asked for specific issues I decided to clarify with more than a reference to Sander's message. I pointed out some specific issues which have not yet been resolved, and which, I believe, cannot be resolved. C. Regardless of how ETNO reaches the positions in its position papers, the fact is that they do publish them. This means that we need to take them into consideration if we consider the RIPE process to be open and transparent. I note that people from at least two other ETNO members (France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom) also posted to this list, i.e. they took part in the discussion. Rather than insulting people because they happen to work for a company which happens to be a member of ETNO, we should be making greater attempts to engage them in the discussion here. I've done a bit of that, which is why FT and DT have participated a bit, but I believe that the main responsibility for bringing people into the discussion falls on the WG chairs. The fact remains that you cannot reach a consensus without an active discussion. --Michael Dillon

Gert: this:

...

Then I did see one individual waving the ETNO flag (which has no significance to RIPE policy processes, btw - it's "individuals taking

...

part in the discussion" not "I represent a bigger organization that you"), fundamentally opposing anything, without being willing to start a constructive dialogue or listen to the proposer's arguments.

Which is one of the big problems with the ETNO folks - they brew their statements outside the RIPE processes, and since the statements

...

are already finished when they are presented here, they can't adjust their position. Which is not the way to constructively go about changing policies.

Just seems plain wrong. I wonder where you got this idea. ETNO does have significance in RIPE policy processes: it's members are paid-up, card-carrying LIRs. They get to propose, react to and discuss RIPE policy issues just like anyone else. I've never seen anyone from ETNO suggest on this list anything to the effect of "I represent a bigger organization than you." I'd like to see a reference or source for that remark. The next two statements are factually incorrect. ETNO made a presentation on principles regarding IPv4 exhaustion in Amsterdam. There was tons of feedback at the microphone ( I remember because I did the presentation ) and the LIRs who are members of ETNO considered that feedback and even presented a revision of that set of principles. Instead of fundamentally opposing anything, they actually proposed a set of constructive principles to guide policy in the period of IPv4 free pool exhaustion. The suggestion that ETNO can't adjust their position is also incorrect. ETNO did adjust their position in response to the feedback and discussion on the mailing list after the Amsterdam presentation. The LIRs who are a part of ETNO, it seems to me, are linked by a set of common interests and shared circumstances and very naturally talk amongst each other on policy issues that matter to them. My problem with your attitude toward ETNO is that you seem to ignore the fact that people talk about RIPE policy development in many places; not just on the RIPE address policy group mailing list. When a group of LIRs come together and say something about policy developments in RIPE, I think the chair should be welcoming the input rather than disrespecting it in public. mark -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 10:18 AM To: Dillon,M,Michael,DMK R Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) Hi, On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 03:44:02PM +0100, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:

...

...

It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered freehold property.

Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents into account? "Different circumstances".

Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not make any distinction between the two versions of IP.

Since this statement is very much obviously in the context of IPv6, why should it mention IPv4, or point out that "differently from the rest of the document, we're only talking about IPv6 here"?

...

...

2007-08 should be rejected because no consensus has been formed and

This is exactly the point of a "v3" of this document: take into account previous discussions and comments, and try finding a consensus on the reworked document.

The argument "I reject this version because no consensus was formed on a previous version" is not a very useful contribution, in itself - if you have specific issues with *v3* (or your concerns about v1 and v2 are still un-addressed), please voice them.

When there is a huge lack of consensus in favour of a policy proposal, that proposal should be abandoned. It goes against consensus to continually make small changes to the proposal and extend the whole process by months or years. This does not help the stakeholders in RIPE and I do not believe that this is what people expect from the WG chairs.

I don't see a "huge lack of consensus". I see specific worries (that can be addressed), and I did see some statements of support. Then I did see one individual waving the ETNO flag (which has no significance to RIPE policy processes, btw - it's "individuals taking part in the discussion" not "I represent a bigger organization that you"), fundamentally opposing anything, without being willing to start a constructive dialogue or listen to the proposer's arguments. Which is one of the big problems with the ETNO folks - they brew their statements outside the RIPE processes, and since the statements are already finished when they are presented here, they can't adjust their position. Which is not the way to constructively go about changing policies.

But you asked for specific issues.

Thanks! I leave it to the proposers of the protocol to answer these. Gert Doering -- APWG chairs -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 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

------- snip -------- 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. ------- snip --------

This can be read as "you can talk all you want, but we've decided!" - and this has been, as I wrote, ill-received.

May I suggest that you, as RIPE Address Policy WG chair should take this issue up with the ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues WG Chairperson who wrote those words, and not use them to wave the flag against ETNO. When I read those same words which you quoted, I interpreted them quite differently. But regardless of the specific policy points under discussion, there is clearly a cultural misunderstanding between some RIPE participants and some ETNO participants. Dialogue is the way to get this resolved.

I would very much welcome all ETNO members to discuss the matters *here* - they might even have different opinions regarding proposals.

Have you asked ETNO to provide you the email addresses for all ETNO representatives in order to invite them to join in? --Michael Dillon

Hi, On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 05:53:51PM +0100, mark.h.mcfadden@bt.com wrote:

I hope you're not suggesting that ETNO members can't choose to talk about RIPE policy matters when they get together.

Certainly not.

Of course they can.

Yes.

And, when they do, if they come to a common understanding and publish that as input to the RIPE APWG, the chair should welcome that input. Picking and choosing which input the chair finds acceptable is not an appropriate way to form policy.

Well. I welcome all input from all participants on the mailing list (and off-list, of course). And of course I cannot speak for "all readers of the mailing list". But still, as the chair, I can take the liberty to point out approaches that make the process of finding a compromise *for the common goal of proper Internet resource stewardship* much more awkward than necessary. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 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

This part scares me. The RIPE policy development process has to be as open and transparent as possible. When groups of stakeholders discuss RIPE policy development outside the 'official' channel (this mailing list) the process gets a lot less transparent...

This is why it is so difficult for us as working group chairs to use statements like those from ETNO in the policy development process. We can't see how the statement was created and what the reasons and arguments were. I understand why ETNO members work together to think about such a complex subject as 2007-08, but to be able to participate in RIPE policy development those members will have to discuss the policy here on this mailing list where everyone can follow that discussion, and not only inside ETNO.

I think the major problem in this case was calling it a 'statement' or 'position'. Such a name does not (seem to) give much room for discussion. If ETNO had published a list of concerns about the proposal and those concerns were discussed on this list there would be no problem.

to take an analog from the way organizations such as the ietf handle this o etno should be encouraged to think and confer all they want o but this wg is made up of individual experts (and lirs?) and people here speak as such randy

Nigel,

V3 of the policy was explicitly issued to address the main ETNO concern, that is the "need" requirement. If you carefully look at V3 you will see that the RIPE NCC now has to apply exactly the same checking and approval process that it does for a "normal" allocation.

This brings 2007-08 closer to ARIN's 2008-2, and in fact "improves" on it by not prohibiting disaggregation. While you very reasonably point out that the routing table could explode under such circumstances, having such a prohibition along with needs justification can lead to perverse impacts where holders of large blocks are only able to unload them to large users like ISPs. Are there additional mechanisms that could be put into play to limit that explosion? For instance, could one cap the deaggregation rate per aggregated block to some number per anum? What work has been done in this area. Regards, Eliot Lear Cisco Systems

But you asked for specific issues. Let's start with ETNO's concerns that a transfer system cannot ensure a process that is open, transparent and equitable. By opening the door to private negotiations and agreements between LIR's, you will have destroyed the very foundation of RIPE, which is openness, transparency and fairness.

Michael, Could we see a public statement from ETNO or the majority of its members that should an IPv4 address market emerge after RIR exhaustion, that all ETNO members will abstain from engaging in IP address trading? I think that a statement of this form would send a very clear message to RIPE that an IPv4 address market of the type proposed in 2007-08 is not supported by community consensus. Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick@inex.ie

On 8 Oct 2008, at 17:14, <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:

Anyone who looks at this aspect of the issue will see that huge amounts of the IPv4 address space are tied up in this way and are very unlikely to ever be transferred to another company if it appears that IP addresses have some monetary value.

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. If/when IP addresses have a more visible monetary value than they do today, I would expect that will create nasty accounting/auditing/taxation problems. For example when an "asset" that the organisation has "owned" for years suddenly appears from out of nowhere on the organisation's balance sheet. If the organisation has no need for some of its IP space and it's not *that* valuable, a CFO might be minded to hand it back rather than face the prospect of retrospectively readjusting their accounts and tax returns for the last umpteen years.

On 9 Oct 2008, at 08:28, Andy Davidson wrote:

Addressing doesn't have latent worth right now because as an LIR with a justifiable need, I can beg resources from a hostmaster, at no (or a small marginal - if billing score is implicated) direct cost.

I'm not convinced by that argument Andy and IMO it's unlikely to stand up to scrutiny by an auditor or the tax authorities. The two of us could agree to trade some commodity and claim that what was traded had no value. That doesn't make it so in the eyes of the taxman or our company auditors. In some respects IPv4 space today has parallels with .com stock options. [Remember them?] At the point of acquisition they had a marginal value -- "fair" market price -- that was close to zero. Most stayed there or depreciated. :-( But when the circumstances were right, the options became very valuable and those holding them got rich.

I therefore can't trade any of these address resources because others can do the same. This means that today the addresses have no value.

Just because someone can't or doesn't want to trade something doesn't mean it has no value. We know that there have been examples where companies have merged or been acquired for the address space they held and that space determined the price of the transaction. And there is a grey market in address space outside the RIR system. Which implies that addresses do have a value.

Jim and all, I must agree with Jim here. I can say that our IPv8 addresses have for whatever reason become extremely valuable, as discrete offers for IPv8 address space I am getting has in two months, jumped by 3x. Of course we never sell IPv8 address space, as our policies only allocate based on demonstrated need and time to full usage. Jim Reid wrote:

On 9 Oct 2008, at 08:28, Andy Davidson wrote:

...

Addressing doesn't have latent worth right now because as an LIR with a justifiable need, I can beg resources from a hostmaster, at no (or a small marginal - if billing score is implicated) direct cost.

I'm not convinced by that argument Andy and IMO it's unlikely to stand up to scrutiny by an auditor or the tax authorities. The two of us could agree to trade some commodity and claim that what was traded had no value. That doesn't make it so in the eyes of the taxman or our company auditors.

In some respects IPv4 space today has parallels with .com stock options. [Remember them?] At the point of acquisition they had a marginal value -- "fair" market price -- that was close to zero. Most stayed there or depreciated. :-( But when the circumstances were right, the options became very valuable and those holding them got rich.

...

I therefore can't trade any of these address resources because others can do the same. This means that today the addresses have no value.

Just because someone can't or doesn't want to trade something doesn't mean it has no value. We know that there have been examples where companies have merged or been acquired for the address space they held and that space determined the price of the transaction. And there is a grey market in address space outside the RIR system. Which implies that addresses do have a value.

Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

Marshall and all, I wouldn't know actually. But thanks for the concern and consideration regardless. >:) Marshall Eubanks wrote:

On Oct 8, 2008, at 8:05 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:

...

Jim and all,

I must agree with Jim here. I can say that our IPv8 addresses have for whatever reason become extremely valuable, as discrete offers for IPv8 address space I am getting has in two months, jumped by 3x. Of course we never sell IPv8 address space, as our policies only allocate based on demonstrated need and time to full usage.

Indeed. Jim Fleming must be proud.

Regards Marshall

...

Jim Reid wrote:

...

On 9 Oct 2008, at 08:28, Andy Davidson wrote:

...

Addressing doesn't have latent worth right now because as an LIR with a justifiable need, I can beg resources from a hostmaster, at no (or a small marginal - if billing score is implicated) direct cost.

I'm not convinced by that argument Andy and IMO it's unlikely to stand up to scrutiny by an auditor or the tax authorities. The two of us could agree to trade some commodity and claim that what was traded had no value. That doesn't make it so in the eyes of the taxman or our company auditors.

In some respects IPv4 space today has parallels with .com stock options. [Remember them?] At the point of acquisition they had a marginal value -- "fair" market price -- that was close to zero. Most stayed there or depreciated. :-( But when the circumstances were right, the options became very valuable and those holding them got rich.

...

I therefore can't trade any of these address resources because others can do the same. This means that today the addresses have no value.

Just because someone can't or doesn't want to trade something doesn't mean it has no value. We know that there have been examples where companies have merged or been acquired for the address space they held and that space determined the price of the transaction. And there is a grey market in address space outside the RIR system. Which implies that addresses do have a value.

Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

...

I therefore can't trade any of these address resources because others can do the same. This means that today the addresses have no value. You are asserting the black market doesn't exist. An interesting approach.

two female ostriches are walking down beach one looks behind & says "don't look now, but to males are following us" other says, "let's walk faster," so they do first looks behind and says "they are catching up!" so they break into a trot first looks behind and says "they are still catching up!" so they start running full tilt first looks behind and says "they are catching up even more quickly!" they both slam on the brakes and stick their heads in the sand a minute later the two males arrive the males look around and say "where did they go?" and, if you believe this, then it's safe to believe that ipv4 address space has, and will continue to have, no value. randy

Michael and all, AgainI fully agree with Michael here.... michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:

...

...

It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered freehold property.

Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents into account? "Different circumstances".

Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not make any distinction between the two versions of IP.

...

...

2007-08 should be rejected because no consensus has been formed and

This is exactly the point of a "v3" of this document: take into account previous discussions and comments, and try finding a consensus on the reworked document.

The argument "I reject this version because no consensus was formed on a previous version" is not a very useful contribution, in itself - if you have specific issues with *v3* (or your concerns about v1 and v2 are still un-addressed), please voice them.

When there is a huge lack of consensus in favour of a policy proposal, that proposal should be abandoned. It goes against consensus to continually make small changes to the proposal and extend the whole process by months or years. This does not help the stakeholders in RIPE and I do not believe that this is what people expect from the WG chairs.

But you asked for specific issues. Let's start with ETNO's concerns that a transfer system cannot ensure a process that is open, transparent and equitable. By opening the door to private negotiations and agreements between LIR's, you will have destroyed the very foundation of RIPE, which is openness, transparency and fairness.

Eric Schmidt feels that transfers open up more possibilities for abuse. This is what happens when you allow for secret agreements.

Jay Daley says that reclaim/reuse could be more efficient than transfers. This is quite likely when you consider that the entire free pool must be in RIPE's hands, therefore there is the greatest possibility of aggregation of blocks, by rejecting 2007-08 and keeping the current system.

Per Heldal mentions legal implications for RIPE. Clearly one of those is the conflict between the statement of principle in the IPv6 policy, and the enabling of transfers for IPv4. How will the courts react to numbers which are freehold property, and others which are not?

Edited versions of the policy proposal cannot fix these issues.

--Michael Dillon

Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

as the comment period for the v3 of 2007-08 is nearing its end (one week left), please send your comments about it to the list.

Do you want to see this proposal implemented?

Do you absolutely refuse this proposal, and any movement in that direction?

Do you agree, in general, with the underlying idea, but need to see changes in the specifics before this can become policy?

2007-08 is not perfect. It has flaws, and it creates certain problems, many of which have been discussed previously on this channel. However, the alternative is an underground market which is impossible to control if you don't acknowledge its existence. From this perspective, 2007-08 is significantly less harmful to the environment than any other alternative I've seen. In many respects, it's quite a good example of "worse is better". I support the proposal as-is. The additions to v3 are for the better. Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick@inex.ie

Do you want to see this proposal implemented?

No!

I'd prefer a firm rejection of any policy designed enable a marketplace for integers. That should at least discourage some of the worst speculators and eliminate the financial motive for any organisation to hang on to blocks they don't need and return them to the common pool.

You are deliberately forestalling the possibility of new entrants getting any IPv4 after exhaustion, never mind existing operators for whom IPv4 pays employees' salaries. Is this the right tradeoff for the industry? Niall

the level of self-righteousness bs and fantasy here is truly impressive. one would think that the goal would be to maximally get ipv4 space into play, not to punish people, keep someone from making a buck/euro/... this list is address policy, not social policy or self-righteous indignation policy. if you want to put your energy into social policy, go help poor people in exploited countries. no, not the usa, silly :) randy

hi sander,

...

one would think that the goal would be to maximally get ipv4 space into play Unless we can get IPv6 completely deployed before we run out of IPv4 space, I think this should indeed be our current goal.

i think we should start a betting pool. when the last /8s are given to the rirs by iana, X percent of traffic in bits/sec measured at some easy point (say linx, amsix, or de-cix). i take X=6. yes, i am an optimist. and i do not believe that any amount of screaming, twisted policies, threats, ... will change this at all significantly, just as it does not for bcp 38, dns vulnerability patching, ... there are the folk who do things and the folk who don't. transfer is one of the few things we can do in the address policy space which may actually make a difference, albeit not a large one, but still a difference. randy

Randy and all, Well the USA is broke and sevearly in debt. So all americans wheather we realize it of not are poor, despite what our bank account ballances my otherwise indicate accordingly. Randy Bush wrote:

the level of self-righteousness bs and fantasy here is truly impressive.

one would think that the goal would be to maximally get ipv4 space into play, not to punish people, keep someone from making a buck/euro/... this list is address policy, not social policy or self-righteous indignation policy.

if you want to put your energy into social policy, go help poor people in exploited countries. no, not the usa, silly :)

randy

Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

Michael, New entrants typically want to see predictable prices or else

they simply don't enter.

I think you are underestimating the amount of uncertainty that is dealt with in business plans.

After a transfer scheme is in place, and speculators take up the remaining free pool, the price of IPv4 will be wildly unpredictable. That situation will block new entrants.

No, it will make it more risky to do so. What _will_ block new entrants is no new IPv4 being available at all, never mind at currently unknown prices.

However, there is another aspect which involves IPv6. Large ISPs are already deploying IPv6 trials in order to be prepared for the day when they cannot grow their networks with IPv4.

"already deploying IPv6 trials" Should be production ready, oh when would you say, then?

This means, that a new entrant into the Internet business, can realistically use IPv6 technology and expect to be able to buy full connectivity to all IPv4 and IPv6 Internet sites from one of the larger ISPs.

Thank you for elucidating (quite clearly!) the problem.

They will leave that to the larger upstream ISPs

Great stuff! Even clearer. NRM

Rejecting any and all policy changes which enable a market for IPv4 addresses, does not lead to blocking new entrants. It may, in fact, create greater opportunities for new entrants since they will be able to avoid the costs and complexity of supporting both v4 and v6. But when there will be IPv4 resources available (for an currently unknown price, but available...) those new entrants will at least have a choice. Those that think the price for v4 is too high will buy a service from an ISP that does have v4 resources, and those that are willing to

Hi Michael, pay the price for v4 will be able to avoid buying that service. This seems a much healthier situation than forcing all new entrants to buy v4 services.

They will leave that to the larger upstream ISPs, but at the same time they will be able to pay less than an IPv4 entrant would pay. But without a way to get v4 resources there will be no IPv4 entrants...

- Sander (not speaking as wg chair)

If I understand this right, you're opposing this proposal because you are afraid of speculators?

No. I'm opposed to this because I believe it is not necessary. RIPE already has mechanisms to transfer addresses between LIRs. One LIR gives extra addresses to RIPE. Then RIPE allocates them to the next LIR in the queue with a demonstrated need. Also, I believe that an IPv4 address market is completely unpredictable. It could make things a little bit better during IPv4 exhaustion but it could also make things a lot worse. There is less risk in leaving the system unchanged.

Given that speculators could do this right away (open a startup company, claim ridiculously large customers, let the company sleep for a few years, and then sell the company including the address space for a nice markup) - why do you assume it would become worse with 2007-08?

Because if the company is sleeping, then RIPE could reclaim the addresses. The basis of RIPE allocations is that the LIR demonstrates a technical need for the addresses. Note that ARIN is currently discussing how to handle review and reclamation procedures. I believe that it would be better for RIPE to reject all transfer policies and to focus our effort on review and reclamation policies.

Can we realistically assume that there will not be any address trading if 2007-08 is withdrawn? Or won't it be just the same sort of trading - but without a RIR that keeps track of who can claim rights to what?

If we reject transfer policies, we still have a RIPE database that records who has the rights to an address block. If somebody wants to try to buy those rights secretly, they risk losing the address block when RIPE reviews it and reclaims it. Since the LIR has no right to sell the rights, it means that the buyer has paid money in return for nothing.

(If, OTOH, you're right and everbody will go to IPv6 right away, then I don't see why 2007-08 would do *harm*)

2007-08 is the first step to treating IP addresss as freehold assets which can be bought and sold. If RIPE changes the status of IPv4 addresses, then IPv6 addresses will also become assets which must be accounted for on the balance sheet. I think that a court would decide that 2007-08 and any future transfer policies override the statement on freehold status in the IPv6 policy. And I also believe that the people who are backing 2007-08 have not really thought through all the implications of enabling a market for IPv4 addresses. Or if they have, they have not really explained it on the list. --Michael Dillon

Dear Nick,

It would be instructive to hear from the RIPE NCC how much address space is voluntarily handed back by LIRs and other IPv4 address holders right now. Would it be possible for someone from the NCC provide a rough estimate of this?

In raw numbers, the amount of address space returned to the RIPE NCC for the past few years is as follows: 2004 587776 /13,/17,/18,/19,/20,/21 2005 1419264 /12,/14,/16,/17,/19,/21 2006 1155072 /12,/16,/17,/19 2007 2166784 /11,/16,/20 2008 1136640 /12,/16,/18,/20,/21 (year to date) Note that these are the total amount of addresses returned to the RIPE NCC. As is often the case with IPv4 allocation statistics, the numbers tend to be dominated by a small number of very large allocations, for example: In 2007 a /14 allocation was returned by an LIR when they requested a /13, in 2006 also a /14 was returned as a /13 was requested and in 2005 a /13 was swapped for a /12 this way. Also included in these numbers are the addresses reclaimed from closed LIRs: 2005 385024 /14,/16,/17,/18,/19 2006 393216 /14,/15 2007 1585152 /12,/13,/19,/20 2008 1042432 /13,/14,/15,/16,/17,/18,/19,/21 (to end of September) Please let us know if you have any further questions regarding these numbers. Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC Registration Services

Alex le Heux said:

In 2007 a /14 allocation was returned by an LIR when they requested a /13,

That's not really a return, it's just a more efficient way of allocating them a second /13. So what is the total number of addresses returned each year that weren't part of a swap for larger space? -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive@demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 Internet Expert | Home: <clive@davros.org> | Fax: +44 870 051 9937 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646 THUS - a Cable and Wireless business

Dear Alex, Those are very interesting numbers. Removing the swaps, which perhaps just leaves the closed LIRs, could you put those returns into context in terms of the total amount of space managed by RIPE? Thanks, Eliot Lear

On 9 okt 2008, at 15:16, <michael.dillon@bt.com> <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:

Because if the company is sleeping, then RIPE could reclaim the addresses. The basis of RIPE allocations is that the LIR demonstrates a technical need for the addresses. Note that ARIN is currently discussing how to handle review and reclamation procedures. I believe that it would be better for RIPE to reject all transfer policies and to focus our effort on review and reclamation policies.

As much as I like the idea of more scrutiny on resource holders and especially on those who are asking for more. I do think it will be hard to accomplish. We might get away with a tighter policy on new allocations, but you can't really change the rules after the game has been played, so reclaiming address blocks from current holders might get hard. A more direct pointer to the arin proposal, or a short summary would be welcome (is it 2007-14 ?) as we could see if it can be adopted by us and we can draft a ripe proposal in the same directions. I think in general, as we are getting close to the 'end of the world' it is a good thing to keep polices between RIR's largely the same to prevent organisations to go shopping between RIR's to find the one with the most relaxed ruleset. Groet, MarcoH

On 9 okt 2008, at 12:44, <michael.dillon@bt.com> <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote: With apologies for the late respond due to a holiday

...

You are deliberately forestalling the possibility of new entrants getting any IPv4 after exhaustion, never mind existing operators for whom IPv4 pays employees' salaries. Is this the right tradeoff for the industry?

New entrants typically want to see predictable prices or else they simply don't enter. Currently, the price for IPv4 addresses is predictable. After a transfer scheme is in place, and speculators take up the remaining free pool, the price of IPv4 will be wildly unpredictable. That situation will block new entrants.

An unpredictable price might me make people scratch their head a bit more or think over the business case again, I don't think it will stop them from entering. The price of oil (and other related products like natural gas) is also largely unpredictable, the only thing you can really say is that, as we slowly run out the price will go up. Yet in the end people are buying new stuff and investing in new plants which largely depend on these resources, while there are alternatives (sun/ wind/water) available which have a much more predictable pricing scheme, moslty the (higher) build cost. Consider the choise between IPv4/IPv6 largely the same, go for the easy way and hanle the increasing cost or go with 'renewable' resources like IPv6. As stated before, I don't like the idea of a market, but I would rather see some policy in place before it goes underground. Should, like you stated in earlier discussions, no market arise because there are no (large) sellers, we might have wasted some time. But better safe then sorry. Groet, MarcoH

Per, the truth is this is not an integer anymore, but a Valuable Resource, may be more valuable than oil and uranium. There WILL BE a market. More, there IS a market NOW. But you can choose will it be the black market or the clear one. Per Heldal wrote:

I'd prefer a firm rejection of any policy designed enable a marketplace for integers. That should at least discourage some of the worst speculators and eliminate the financial motive for any organisation to hang on to blocks they don't need and return them to the common pool.

-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

On Oct 14, 2008, at 3:48 AM, Max Tulyev wrote:

Per,

the truth is this is not an integer anymore, but a Valuable Resource, may be more valuable than oil and uranium.

There WILL BE a market. More, there IS a market NOW.

But you can choose will it be the black market or the clear one.

Exactly. This has been pretty obvious for some years now.

Per Heldal wrote:

...

I'd prefer a firm rejection of any policy designed enable a marketplace for integers.

Note that there are already a bunch of markets for characters (for example, domain names and trademarks), and I have heard of deals over phone numbers. There is no reason for integers to be any different. Regards Marshall

...

That should at least discourage some of the worst speculators and eliminate the financial motive for any organisation to hang on to blocks they don't need and return them to the common pool.

-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

I support this as-is, but I would hope we have the maturity to refine it if it becomes clear that it's not useful. Niall On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Hi fellow APWG members,

as the comment period for the v3 of 2007-08 is nearing its end (one week left), please send your comments about it to the list.

Do you want to see this proposal implemented?

Do you absolutely refuse this proposal, and any movement in that direction?

Do you agree, in general, with the underlying idea, but need to see changes in the specifics before this can become policy?

If there are no comments, it's a bit hard for the chairs to judge whether we have consensus or not...

Gert Doering, APWG chair

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 02:19:02PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:

...

PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources

Dear Colleagues,

The text of the policy proposal 2007-08 has been revised based on the community feedback. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today. As a result a new Review Phase is set for the proposal.

You can find the full proposal at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html

and the draft RIPE Document at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft2007-08-v3.html

...

We encourage you to read the revised proposal and the draft document, and

send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 16 October 2008.

...

Regards

Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

-- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645

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