Hi Nick, Could you explain why not? Clearly it is something that should part of the NCC verification duties, but we have been told several times, in other policy proposals, that we need to make it explicit so they can "act". Otherwise, do you have other suggestions, or do you think the we should ignore the stockpiling? Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 28/10/20 13:09, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Nick Hilliard" <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de nick@foobar.org> escribió: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:05: > However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more > IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and > thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*. [...] > Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ? tl;dr: no. Nick ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Hi Sergey, Note that I'm not intending to change anything on IPv4 ... Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 28/10/20 13:20, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Sergey Myasoedov via address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de address-policy-wg@ripe.net> escribió: Hi Jordi, > Otherwise, do you have other suggestions, or do you think the we should ignore the stockpiling? A 'stockpiling' on the obsoleted resource is a result of semi-free market. Just let the IPv4 go, and market and technology will do the rest. And yes, I am the market player. -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov > On 28 Oct 2020, at 13:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > > Hi Nick, > > Could you explain why not? > > Clearly it is something that should part of the NCC verification duties, but we have been told several times, in other policy proposals, that we need to make it explicit so they can "act". > > Otherwise, do you have other suggestions, or do you think the we should ignore the stockpiling? > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > El 28/10/20 13:09, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Nick Hilliard" <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de nick@foobar.org> escribió: > > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:05: >> However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more >> IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and >> thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*. > [...] >> Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ? > > tl;dr: no. > > Nick > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > > ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Hi Elvis & Aleksey (to avoid one extra email), As said, it is a matter of responsibility. I'm not the NCC, neither work for them. I think it is a community matter and there is a clear principle here: "justified need". I also agree that the justification can't be too strict, but there is always a right balance point. If an organization has 20 LIRs and they can *justify the need* even for a /12 for each LIR, I'm *perfectly fine* with that. What I don't think is right is that we bypass the justified need. If we want to do that, let's remove it from all the policies. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 28/10/20 13:32, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Elvis Daniel Velea" <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de elvis@velea.eu> escribió: Hi Jordi, what is the problem you want to solve? Is the ‘IPv6 stockpiling’ creating any issues? As far as I know, we have plenty of IPv6 available and by forcing return or imposing conditions on mergers/transfers you only create hurdles for the people that actually use IPv6. I’d say this is a non problem and actually advise RIPE NCC RS to stop tracking/presenting on this unless this issue causes them complications in justifying additional allocation requests from the IANA. Elvis Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device. > On Oct 28, 2020, at 05:26, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > > Hi Sergey, > > Note that I'm not intending to change anything on IPv4 ... > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > El 28/10/20 13:20, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Sergey Myasoedov via address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de address-policy-wg@ripe.net> escribió: > > Hi Jordi, > >> Otherwise, do you have other suggestions, or do you think the we should ignore the stockpiling? > > A 'stockpiling' on the obsoleted resource is a result of semi-free market. Just let the IPv4 go, and market and technology will do the rest. > > And yes, I am the market player. > > -- > Kind regards, > Sergey Myasoedov > > >> On 28 Oct 2020, at 13:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Nick, >> >> Could you explain why not? >> >> Clearly it is something that should part of the NCC verification duties, but we have been told several times, in other policy proposals, that we need to make it explicit so they can "act". >> >> Otherwise, do you have other suggestions, or do you think the we should ignore the stockpiling? >> >> Regards, >> Jordi >> @jordipalet >> >> >> >> El 28/10/20 13:09, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Nick Hilliard" <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de nick@foobar.org> escribió: >> >> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:05: >>> However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more >>> IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and >>> thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*. >> [...] >>> Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ? >> >> tl;dr: no. >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> >> ********************************************** >> IPv4 is over >> Are you ready for the new Internet ? >> http://www.theipv6company.com >> The IPv6 Company >> >> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > > ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Hi Jordi, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:13:

Could you explain why not?

because the purpose of a registry is to ensure accurate registration information rather than to micromanage resources. As far as I can see, the RIPE NCC is doing its job here and there's no need to instruct it to go off and do something else. There's no shortage of ipv6 address space and no reason to think that we will ever end up with a future shortage. So there is no reason for people to treat ipv6 address blocks as having future scarcity value, which means that there is no motivation to "stockpile". I.e. the entire basis of your argument is void. Nick

On 28 Oct 2020, at 12:08, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:

[...]

...

Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?

tl;dr: no.

+1

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 07:09 Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:05:

...

However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*. [...] Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?

tl;dr: no.

Nick

There has never been a requirement to announce address blocks, private use of globally unique addressing is sufficient reason for an allocation in my opinion. Addresses don’t have to be announced to be in use. However, as a matter of basic principle, I think there should be a simple policy statement that completely unused address blocks should be returned to the original allocating RIR, especially if there are no plans to use the address blocks in the foreseeable future, but I don’t believe there needs to be any organized enforcement actions of this basic principle for IPv6 at this time, maybe several decades in the future some level of enforcement could become necessary and prudent. Nevertheless, having this basic principle in policy for several decades before it is needed would prevent any arguments to the contrary, when or if the time for such enforcement ever comes. Thanks -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================

On 28 Oct 2020, at 13:33, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:

I understand that the NCC tries to find additional funds and implements additional restrictions to force their members to make additional spending.

The RIPE NCC does not do that. Daniel

Hi Cynthia, Exactly, that’s the point, there is no incentive – the only incentive is stockpiling, just in case IPv6 becomes scarse and may create a problem like the lack of IPv4, even if this takes 30 years, or 100 years, and you want to secure the funding of the kids of your kids by having a resource that then, will be subjected to market price and transfers. If I understood correctly from Nikolas presentation (please, correct me if I’m wrong), the bigger ISPs, typically have a single LIR with a big allocation, but they don’t have (because they aren’t typically interested in games, just justified need), multiple LIRs with multiple IPv6 allocations (or at least not big ones). Regards, Jordi El 28/10/20 13:47, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Cynthia Revström via address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de address-policy-wg@ripe.net> escribió: Hi, While I will admit it's a bit odd to allocate that much v6 space to a single entity, I don't see how this is going to cause issues based on what is currently happening, like this is not happening at scale. Sure there might be a /21 (256x /29) of IPv6 space assigned to LIRs who already had a /29. but there are many large ISPs who alone have more space than this. Telia has a /20, China Telecom has a /16. Additionally there is no real incentive to request multiple /29s other than very rare cases. unless LIRs requesting like 16x /29s are a common occurrence, this is a non issue imo. disclaimer: I do have 3x /29 for a reason that may seem like a waste to some people and my specific issue could probably be solved by RIPE allowing me to split my /29 into /32s. -Cynthia On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, 13:05 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg, <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote: Hi all, After Nikolas presentation today, I've been thinking on possible ways to resolve this, so before sending a possible policy proposal, I think it deserves some discussion. The intent of the proposal 2018-01 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01), was to align the IPv4 and IPv6 policies in the matter of an LIR vs organization. We must remind that the allocation/assignment of resources is based on justified need. And yes, we have a lot of IPv6 space, but it is really justified and the same organization, having different LIRs, can use it as a trick for stockpiling if there is not such justified need? In IPv4 this is not "a problem" because we don't have more space. Well ... not exactly true ... some organizations could have used "the trick" to get more IPv4 space by creating multiple LIRs. In other regions, I think this is not a problem because the cost of the membership is not per "LIR" (flat rate in RIPE NCC), but based on the size of the allocation/assignment. So, because IPv6 is not a scarce resource, it seems there is no incentive to pay more for getting more if you're not really using it. However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*. I clearly think this is not a good thing. It seems to me that the problem lies in section 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria, and exactly here: b) have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations and/or End Site assignments within two years. So, is the problem that "a plan" is not sufficient if it is not "verified" and the "bad guys" know that the chances for having it verified are too small? Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ? Other ideas? Remember that the problem is not only about scarcity. This extra space may be used "intermittently" for bad or even criminal activities and we have a responsibility on that as a community. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

On 28 Oct 2020, at 13:18, Cynthia Revström via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

This is not a real issue, this is just trying to add more bureaucracy for no reason.

+1 IMO this proposal is an utterly pointless and unnecessary make-work exercise. There’s no justification for it.

Jordi, Is there currently an instance of mass IPv6 hoarding occurring? Not a theoretical – an actual instance. Requiring justification for all allocations was required under IPv4 because there was a motivation to hoard that simply doesn’t exist under IPv6. With IPv4, we foresaw a shortage – and thus a motivation for hoarding – long before it happened. RFC 1883, the first IPv6 definition, was published in 1995 and cites “Expanded Addressing Capabilities” as the first major change category. Requiring an allocation to be justified is not the baseline; it is an imposed requirement. It wasn’t imposed for initial /29 allocations to prevent most LIRs from having to spend time justifying a resource that isn’t that scarce, saving both the LIR and the NCC some time and effort. If this results in a LIR ending up with a few /29s in aggregate, I don’t really see a problem – the resource just isn’t that limited. Regards, Jacob Slater On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 12:52 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

Hi Cynthia,

Exactly, that’s the point, there is no incentive – the only incentive is stockpiling, just in case IPv6 becomes scarse and may create a problem like the lack of IPv4, even if this takes 30 years, or 100 years, and you want to secure the funding of the kids of your kids by having a resource that then, will be subjected to market price and transfers.

If I understood correctly from Nikolas presentation (please, correct me if I’m wrong), the bigger ISPs, typically have a single LIR with a big allocation, but they don’t have (because they aren’t typically interested in games, just justified need), multiple LIRs with multiple IPv6 allocations (or at least not big ones).

Regards,

Jordi

El 28/10/20 13:47, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Cynthia Revström via address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de address-policy-wg@ripe.net> escribió:

Hi,

While I will admit it's a bit odd to allocate that much v6 space to a single entity, I don't see how this is going to cause issues based on what is currently happening, like this is not happening at scale.

Sure there might be a /21 (256x /29) of IPv6 space assigned to LIRs who already had a /29. but there are many large ISPs who alone have more space than this. Telia has a /20, China Telecom has a /16.

Additionally there is no real incentive to request multiple /29s other than very rare cases. unless LIRs requesting like 16x /29s are a common occurrence, this is a non issue imo.

disclaimer: I do have 3x /29 for a reason that may seem like a waste to some people and my specific issue could probably be solved by RIPE allowing me to split my /29 into /32s.

-Cynthia

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, 13:05 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg, <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

Hi all,

After Nikolas presentation today, I've been thinking on possible ways to resolve this, so before sending a possible policy proposal, I think it deserves some discussion.

The intent of the proposal 2018-01 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01), was to align the IPv4 and IPv6 policies in the matter of an LIR vs organization.

We must remind that the allocation/assignment of resources is based on justified need. And yes, we have a lot of IPv6 space, but it is really justified and the same organization, having different LIRs, can use it as a trick for stockpiling if there is not such justified need?

In IPv4 this is not "a problem" because we don't have more space. Well ... not exactly true ... some organizations could have used "the trick" to get more IPv4 space by creating multiple LIRs.

In other regions, I think this is not a problem because the cost of the membership is not per "LIR" (flat rate in RIPE NCC), but based on the size of the allocation/assignment. So, because IPv6 is not a scarce resource, it seems there is no incentive to pay more for getting more if you're not really using it.

However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and thus stockpile) IPv6 *at no extra cost*.

I clearly think this is not a good thing.

It seems to me that the problem lies in section 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria, and exactly here: b) have a plan for making sub-allocations to other organisations and/or End Site assignments within two years.

So, is the problem that "a plan" is not sufficient if it is not "verified" and the "bad guys" know that the chances for having it verified are too small?

Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ?

Other ideas?

Remember that the problem is not only about scarcity. This extra space may be used "intermittently" for bad or even criminal activities and we have a responsibility on that as a community.

Regards, Jordi @jordipalet

********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.