Frederic, current system is NOT working well. Just because we can't trace dead companies and dead assignments and reuse it. In 1-2 years all unused space will be assigned. But if even that policy will be implemented - how we can enforce it? How can we revoke that space if need? Frederic wrote:

We support if: No Fees is required for this contractual relationship. and this contractual relation ship do not exist between and user and one LIR.

else we do not support, today system works well.

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

Shane, please note we failed in IPv6 migration. IPv6 is only nice toy, but not a new Internet. Just set up your Windows PC to be IPv6 only and see it yourself. And we have no time to change that. But why do you think information about source of traffic will be more accurate than it is now? Note, we can't enforce it by 2007-01. We even not implementing any [periodic] checking there. Shane Kerr wrote:

Max,

I agree with you.

I don't care so much about how to revoke space in the IPv6 context, but it would be nice to know who is responsible for originating traffic. Or at least if someone, somewhere knew who is responsible for originating traffic.

On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 06:01:49PM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote:

...

current system is NOT working well.

Just because we can't trace dead companies and dead assignments and reuse it. In 1-2 years all unused space will be assigned.

But if even that policy will be implemented - how we can enforce it? How can we revoke that space if need?

-- Shane

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

Le mardi 08 avril 2008 à 11:38 +0200, Shane Kerr a écrit :

Max,

I'm going to repeat stuff you already know. Sorry!

Regarding the source of the traffic, right now in IPv4 we have the situation where we have:

IANA -> RIPE NCC -> LIR -> PI recipient

Once the link between the RIPE NCC and the LIR, or between the LIR and PI recipient is broken, the space is completely untraceable.

why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI holder thru Database information. Dead PI is like Dead Domain name. a simple procedure thru mail communication can force to have news about "may be Dead" block and take the good decision. To force "Contractual Link with Ripe" for PI bloc is not the good way. To force Fees is not good too. bst regards. Frederic

Le mardi 08 avril 2008 à 05:29 -0700, Leo Vegoda a écrit :

Hi Frederic,

On 08/04/2008 03:58, "Frederic" <frederic@placenet.org> wrote:

[...]

...

why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI holder thru Database information.

Dead PI is like Dead Domain name.

This is a fairly good analogy. My understanding of domain names is that they are normally delegated according to a contract with a registry or registrar. If the contract ends the delegation is removed.

...

a simple procedure thru mail communication can force to have news about "may be Dead" block and take the good decision.

To force "Contractual Link with Ripe" for PI bloc is not the good way. To force Fees is not good too.

I pay small fees for the domains I have registered.

Is your opposition to this proposal based on the size of the fee or are you opposed to there being any fees at all?

1) first i talk about domain for the way to check if is still alive: you receive one mail, two.... before is deleting. and you pay where you want your domain, you have a lot of choice. Some domain are free and you have choice to use it (eu.org, .st, .nf....) About fees: When a real work is done , is normal to pay for is work. (and the amount is equal to the effort and time to made this work...). About: IANA -> RIPE NCC -> LIR -> PI recipient and may be IANA -> RIPE NCC -> PI recipient the probleme (and is a political problem) is to have choice. We support to have contractual link with the compagny that you decide for PI. request must be free (and free of tax ;). In our non profit company, we talk about Ipv6. and we "do not understand" why assignement are different that Ipv4. why is not possible when you have Ipv4-Pi to request right now Ipv6-PI. "do not understand" = we understand the process, the ripe policy etc... but we do not understand why Pa assignement are available, not PI. (the answer was : we must go to policy proposal mailing list of ripe ;) bst regards. Frederic

Regards,

Leo Vegoda

That's a different policy proposal than this one (2007-01). IPv6 PI assignments are proposed in 2006-01 and 2008-01.

i know, i know ;) 2007-1 is to determine : proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC must be established before the End User receives Internet number resources contractual relationship will be made with Fees. we cannot occult this. (the amount is not the fact of proposal). Today i have choice, i have a relationship with my LIR (contractual or not) i ask AS and PI (is it justify regarding RIPE condition) and i have it. i do not need to have contractual relationship. we do not support: because we want keep the free of the choice. and the argument to said we have "dead compagny" and we need to know by a contractual relationship is not for us a good way, A procedure seems to be a good way... a procedure like domain name. bst regards. Frederic

Regards,

Leo Vegoda

Domain names require a) a contract, and b) a yearly fee (at least for domains under most commercially relevant top-level domains). 2007-01 is actually modelled quite similar to the way the .DE TLD operates.

the at least is important, you have choice : contract or no contract. fees or not fees. 2007-1 limit choice : contract with LIR that has contract with RIPE or contract with Ripe is it the same.

Please re-read the discussions about 2006-01, and 2007-01, and think about what you *really* want - good for you, and good for the Internet as a whole. The end result will always be a compromise, because there is no way to make everybody happy at the same time - but we need to find a compromise that is better than what we currently have (which is *bad*).

yes. the 2007-1 concern internet ressource like AS and PI (not PA). this 2007-1 affect PI. and in a way the 2008-1 (because a lot of inetnum holder do not have contract). well for whole Internet. i do not beleive that the same rule for EVERYBODY MUST FOLLOW is the good/bad choice. what we believe is: to let a little window of freedom/choice. today ipv4-PI holder has this freedom. the compromise is: must have contract relationship become may have contract relationship. bst regards. Frederic

Gert Doering -- APWG chair

At 14:51 08/04/2008, Shane Kerr wrote:

Frederic,

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:58:54AM +0200, Frederic wrote:

...

Le mardi 08 avril 2008 à 11:38 +0200, Shane Kerr a écrit :

...

Max,

I'm going to repeat stuff you already know. Sorry!

Regarding the source of the traffic, right now in IPv4 we have the situation where we have:

IANA -> RIPE NCC -> LIR -> PI recipient

Once the link between the RIPE NCC and the LIR, or between the LIR and PI recipient is broken, the space is completely untraceable.

why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI holder thru Database information.

Dead PI is like Dead Domain name.

a simple procedure thru mail communication can force to have news about "may be Dead" block and take the good decision.

To force "Contractual Link with Ripe" for PI bloc is not the good way. To force Fees is not good too.

To be clear, I don't care about a signed contract, and I really don't care about fees. What you are talking about is an agreement between two parties, the RIPE NCC and the address holder. Something like this(*):

PI holders must maintain an up to date e-mail address with the RIPE NCC. If they do not, the PI space will be returned to the unused pool.

How do you know if it's up to date - or even listened to? Best way is a contract that says they pay a sum yearly. If the cheque doesn't arrive, or bounces, you take the space back. A small sum like €100/year would suffice. -- Tim

Hi Frederic,

...

...

PI holders must maintain an up to date e-mail address with the RIPE NCC. If they do not, the PI space will be returned to the unused pool.

How do you know if it's up to date - or even listened to? Best way is a contract that says they pay a sum yearly. If the cheque doesn't arrive, or bounces, you take the space back. A small sum like €100/year would suffice.

i will give you 10000 bucks and during 100 years it will not what your problem, what the block became.

It still remains a problem. This proposal is not about the money. It is about responsible stewardship of internet resources. The way provider independent resources are handled now it is impossible to follow what is happening to those resources. Resources that are not in use anymore are lost because there is no way to check this, while other organisations might need those resources. Policy proposal 2007-01 was introduced to solve this problem. With a contract between an LIR (or RIPE NCC) and the end user, we can follow the resource. We could check if it is still in use, if the usage still complies with the policies, etc. - Sander

On 8 Apr 2008, at 16:16, Frederic wrote:

because today with PI-IPV4 , is it possible to do not have contract. this possibility is a little windows of freedom, we ask to not close it.

s/little.*/garden gate, leading straight to the swamp./ /Niall

Sander Steffann wrote: [..]

...

i will give you 10000 bucks and during 100 years it will not what your problem, what the block became.

It still remains a problem. This proposal is not about the money. It is about responsible stewardship of internet resources. The way provider independent resources are handled now it is impossible to follow what is happening to those resources. Resources that are not in use anymore are lost because there is no way to check this, while other organisations might need those resources.

Policy proposal 2007-01 was introduced to solve this problem. With a contract between an LIR (or RIPE NCC) and the end user, we can follow the resource. We could check if it is still in use, if the usage still complies with the policies, etc.

All the resources RIR's provide though have amongst others the following two properties: a) no guarantee about the resources uniqueness b) no guarantee that the resource can be used everywhere And with this proposal another one comes along: c) when one has a resource, there is no way to 'block' one from using it even after no payment or voiding/expiry of contract. Thus even if there is a contract and some cash involved, the moment that the contract is not valid any more and/or the cash is not paid anymore, the resource can still be used, because of a). Domain Registries are really delegating, without that link from the TLD one doesn't have a domain, it simply doesn't function (unless one hijacks a rather large set of DNS servers around the world :) For the RIR's though, there is currently not a real way to actually enforce the contract or the payment, let alone that when the data is invalid, that one can enforce that. This is good in one way (the whole idea of the Internet) but bad in the way Then again, one can today already simply take a prefix and simply use it. It is at up to the ISP's who carry that prefix to accept it or not. There are a couple of proposals that might (might as when ISPs want to carry something they can and will do so) help enforce this a little bit but require full cooperation: - (S-)BGP(-S) - Route Objects - etc But as the first is nearly unused that doesn't work. The second one is used, but unfortunately not by the non-RIPE membership and it won't provide full lockdown. The only 'power' that a RIR has and can mostly enforce (unless an ISP hijacks a resource and forces/gets others to accept it) though is something they do on a daily basis: provide new resources. As such, when for a resource under this, or another, policy, the contract expired or the fees are not properly paid, but the resource is kept in use, the RIR could block any new allocations to requesters who do still allow the expired resource to exist and be used. Detection of which can be done fully automated with RIS and similar tools at thus virtually no additional cost. The RIR can then at least ask the requester to contact their neighboring ISP to stop using an expired resource. This is playing cop a bit though, which is something that the RIRs should avoid, but, in this case might be one of the few ways to resolve the issue where someone sets up a contract one year and then simply ignores it for the rest of their lives while keeping the use of the resource. The contract though is legal, thus it might be possible to also let the RIR go to court for these things. Greets, Jeroen