2009-01, Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries
Dear Colleagues, 2009-01, "Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries" is a global policy proposal. You may remember discussions on it started in all regions around the beginning of 2009. The full text of the proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-01.html AfriNIC, APNIC and LACNIC have reached consensus on the proposal so far. In ARIN, however, a revised text, different to the one in submitted to the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP) and in other regions, was introduced by the ARIN Advisory Council (ARIN AC). Following community discussion at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in April 2009, the ARIN AC was tasked with further editing the text. This situation was reported to the RIPE community at RIPE 58. The RIPE community's feedback at that time was that the ARIN version of the proposal should be considered. Today, the ARIN AC has submitted a revised text for discussion in the ARIN community. You can find the current ARIN version of the proposal at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_3.html For your convenience, the major differences between the original ARIN text, the new ARIN version and the current RIPE version have been summarised below. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC -------------------------------------------- Old ARIN "A. Phase I" Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration. At quarterly intervals, each RIR shall return to the IANA any legacy address space recovered, and may return to the IANA any non-legacy address space recovered, in aggregated blocks of /24 or larger, for inclusion in the recovered IPv4 pool. New ARIN "A. Phase I" Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration and designate any such space for return to the IANA. Each RIR shall at quarterly intervals return any such designated address space to the IANA in aggregated blocks of /24 or larger, for inclusion in the recovered IPv4 pool. RIPE "3.1 Phase I" Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration. Each RIR shall at quarterly intervals return any such recovered address space to the IANA in aggregated blocks of /24 or larger, for inclusion in the recovered IPv4 pool. --------------------------------------------
Hi Filiz, community, thanks for the alert and the summary of changes/differences! As a non-native speaker I am looking for a clarification, please see below. Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
2009-01, "Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries" is a global policy proposal. You may remember discussions on it started in all regions around the beginning of 2009. The full text of the proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-01.html
AfriNIC, APNIC and LACNIC have reached consensus on the proposal so far.
[...]
Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC
--------------------------------------------
Old ARIN "A. Phase I"
Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration. At quarterly intervals, each RIR shall return to the IANA any legacy address space recovered, and may return to the IANA any non-legacy address space recovered, in aggregated blocks of /24 or larger, for inclusion in the recovered IPv4 pool.
New ARIN "A. Phase I"
Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration and designate any such space for return to the IANA.
I read this as follows: "Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration and *may* designate any such space for return to the IANA." A different interpretation would be: "Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration and *will* designate any such space for return to the IANA."
Each RIR shall at quarterly intervals return any such designated address space to the IANA in aggregated blocks of /24 or larger, for inclusion in the recovered IPv4 pool.
RIPE "3.1 Phase I"
Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration. Each RIR shall at quarterly intervals return any such recovered address space to the IANA in aggregated blocks of /24 or larger, for inclusion in the recovered IPv4 pool.
--------------------------------------------
Thanks, Wilfried.
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Hi Filiz, community,
thanks for the alert and the summary of changes/differences!
As a non-native speaker I am looking for a clarification, please see below.
New ARIN "A. Phase I"
Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration and designate any such space for return to the IANA.
I read this as follows:
"Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration and *may* designate any such space for return to the IANA."
This is what I intended when writing it: "may" applies to both "recover" and "designate". -Scott
A different interpretation would be:
"Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration and *will* designate any such space for return to the IANA."
Thanks, Scott, for the clarification! Wilfried. Scott Leibrand wrote:
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Hi Filiz, community,
thanks for the alert and the summary of changes/differences!
As a non-native speaker I am looking for a clarification, please see below.
New ARIN "A. Phase I"
Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration and designate any such space for return to the IANA.
I read this as follows:
"Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration and *may* designate any such space for return to the IANA."
This is what I intended when writing it: "may" applies to both "recover" and "designate".
-Scott
A different interpretation would be:
"Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration and *will* designate any such space for return to the IANA."
Hi, Filiz, thanks for pointing this out so clearly. On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 05:57:46PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
New ARIN "A. Phase I"
Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration and designate any such space for return to the IANA. Each RIR shall at quarterly intervals return any such designated address space to the IANA in aggregated blocks of /24 or larger, for inclusion in the recovered IPv4 pool.
RIPE "3.1 Phase I"
Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration. Each RIR shall at quarterly intervals return any such recovered address space to the IANA in aggregated blocks of /24 or larger, for inclusion in the recovered IPv4 pool.
As per the discussion between Wilfried and Scott, this is a significantly different proposal than the one that we have achieved consensus on. ARIN has a MAY here, both for recovery and return-to-IANA. RIPE has a MUST here (it's still a "may" regarding recovery, but as soon as it is recovered, it MUST be returned to IANA). We'll definitely have to discuss this at the WG meeting next week, and I'm afraid that this proposal will have to do another round through the policy processes to achieve identical wording - otherwise it can't be a global policy. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 141055 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
As per the discussion between Wilfried and Scott, this is a significantly different proposal than the one that we have achieved consensus on.
ARIN has a MAY here, both for recovery and return-to-IANA.
RIPE has a MUST here (it's still a "may" regarding recovery, but as soon as it is recovered, it MUST be returned to IANA).
We'll definitely have to discuss this at the WG meeting next week, and I'm afraid that this proposal will have to do another round through the policy processes to achieve identical wording - otherwise it can't be a global policy.
There appears to be a certain amount of doubt as to whether the wording has to be identical or merely substantially the same (but I agree with Gert that this, on the face of it, is a substantially different policy). Note however that ARIN is the odd man out here. All the other RIRs have agreed on the original wording, so it may not be up to *us* to do anything. Nigel
Note however that ARIN is the odd man out here. All the other RIRs have agreed on the original wording, so it may not be up to *us* to do anything.
Actually it is up to us to do something. Now that ARIN has approved a policy with substantially different wording, there is not going to be a global policy covering this. RIPE needs to decide if we are happy with separate regional policies, or if we are willing to adopt ARIN's wording in an attempt to reach a global policy. Of course, if there is not much desire to change anything, then de facto, ARIN's policy is regional and there will be no globally consistent policy. That is roughly how the NRO process works. --Michael Dillon
If in fact there are irreconcilable differences regarding what space is to be recovered and/or returned, then the global policy should be abandoned and a new one proposed which tells IANA what to do when it receives returned address space from an RIR. Ray -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of michael.dillon@bt.com Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:23 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01, Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries
Note however that ARIN is the odd man out here. All the other RIRs have agreed on the original wording, so it may not be up to *us* to do anything.
Actually it is up to us to do something. Now that ARIN has approved a policy with substantially different wording, there is not going to be a global policy covering this. RIPE needs to decide if we are happy with separate regional policies, or if we are willing to adopt ARIN's wording in an attempt to reach a global policy. Of course, if there is not much desire to change anything, then de facto, ARIN's policy is regional and there will be no globally consistent policy. That is roughly how the NRO process works. --Michael Dillon
michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
Note however that ARIN is the odd man out here. All the other RIRs have agreed on the original wording, so it may not be up to *us* to do anything.
Actually it is up to us to do something.
Now that ARIN has approved a policy with substantially different wording, there is not going to be a global policy covering this.
RIPE needs to decide if we are happy with separate regional policies, or if we are willing to adopt ARIN's wording in an attempt to reach a global policy.
Of course, if there is not much desire to change anything, then de facto, ARIN's policy is regional and there will be no globally consistent policy. That is roughly how the NRO process works.
For clarity, ARIN has not yet approved 2009-3. The ARIN AC has revised it, and the revised version is going to be up for adoption discussion at the Dearborn meeting. If the community supports the revised version, and the ARIN AC votes to adopt it, then the other RIRs can decide whether they want to adopt that text as well. Without global consensus, this policy doesn't really do much for us. It is written as a Global Policy because it directs IANA how to redistribute returned address space. That portion of the policy has to go through as a Global Policy, or not at all. -Scott
For clarity, ARIN has not yet approved 2009-3. The ARIN AC has revised it, and the revised version is going to be up for adoption discussion at the Dearborn meeting. If the community supports the revised version, and the ARIN AC votes to adopt it, then the other RIRs can decide whether they want to adopt that text as well.
Without global consensus, this policy doesn't really do much for us. It is written as a Global Policy because it directs IANA how to redistribute returned address space. That portion of the policy has to go through as a Global Policy, or not at all. Exactly. And that part of the policy is still common. So even if ARIN changes the conditions under which they decide to return addresses to
Scott Leibrand wrote: the pool for the common good, the policy can still go forward for adoption as a global policy. Of course the other RIRs might decide that ARIN's stance changes their minds on whether to adopt this policy, but that is a different situation. Nigel
Nigel Titley wrote:
Scott Leibrand wrote:
For clarity, ARIN has not yet approved 2009-3. The ARIN AC has revised it, and the revised version is going to be up for adoption discussion at the Dearborn meeting. If the community supports the revised version, and the ARIN AC votes to adopt it, then the other RIRs can decide whether they want to adopt that text as well.
Without global consensus, this policy doesn't really do much for us. It is written as a Global Policy because it directs IANA how to redistribute returned address space. That portion of the policy has to go through as a Global Policy, or not at all.
Exactly. And that part of the policy is still common. So even if ARIN changes the conditions under which they decide to return addresses to the pool for the common good, the policy can still go forward for adoption as a global policy.
Wearing my AC-hat for a moment, and while I may not be supposed to have a formal point of view here, I would be *very* uncomfortable to see a policy text being forwarded to the Address Council's table for processing according to our rules, which consists of some stuff which IS NOT to be considered part of a global policy, and another section which IS to be regarded as a global policy. OTOH, the NRO may be in a position to separate the parts and only forward those that are common across all regions?
Of course the other RIRs might decide that ARIN's stance changes their minds on whether to adopt this policy, but that is a different situation.
Nigel
Wilfried
ARIN has a MAY here, both for recovery and return-to-IANA. RIPE has a MUST here (it's still a "may" regarding recovery, but as soon as it is recovered, it MUST be returned to IANA). There appears to be a certain amount of doubt as to whether the wording has to be identical or merely substantially the same
< tact=off > < reality=on > underlying the words is substantial disagreement. arin policy wonks have zero intent to return any /8s recovered from the us military to the iana. and those /8s are specifically the subject of this lacnic proposal. randy
On 01/10/2009 23:31, Randy Bush wrote:
underlying the words is substantial disagreement. arin policy wonks have zero intent to return any /8s recovered from the us military to the iana. and those /8s are specifically the subject of this lacnic proposal.
It is sad to see this policy deteriorating into the tragedy of the commons. The original wording had merit. Nick
underlying the words is substantial disagreement. arin policy wonks have zero intent to return any /8s recovered from the us military to the iana. and those /8s are specifically the subject of this lacnic proposal. It is sad to see this policy deteriorating into the tragedy of the commons.
it's the tragedy of the americas, a few hudred years of colonialism, and it goes on. randy
Randy, Can you give this list the source for your statement "arin policy wonks have zero intent to return any /8s recovered from the us military to the iana. and those /8s are specifically the subject of this lacnic proposal." As one of the original authors of this proposal which was drafted by persons from all regions, I really have trouble understanding that this is a LACNIC proposal. Ray -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 18:32 To: Nigel Titley Cc: Gert Doering; Filiz Yilmaz; RIPE Address Policy Working Group Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01, Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries
ARIN has a MAY here, both for recovery and return-to-IANA. RIPE has a MUST here (it's still a "may" regarding recovery, but as soon as it is recovered, it MUST be returned to IANA). There appears to be a certain amount of doubt as to whether the wording has to be identical or merely substantially the same
< tact=off > < reality=on > underlying the words is substantial disagreement. arin policy wonks have zero intent to return any /8s recovered from the us military to the iana. and those /8s are specifically the subject of this lacnic proposal. randy
Hi, one important correction - sorry, I was not fully paying attention: On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 04:34:12PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
As per the discussion between Wilfried and Scott, this is a significantly different proposal than the one that we have achieved consensus on.
I must point out that the RIPE region had NOT achieved formal consensus on this proposal (2009-01) yet. Since we have been aware that the ARIN AC was working on the wording, we deliberately stalled moving the proposal ahead in our policy process - and can now easily do another round of discussion/review phase, with the changed wording (if we agree that this is the way forward). Now, for the other regions, I can't say what the state of affairs is over there. Sorry again for the confusion. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 141055 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
Hello, On Oct 1, 2009, at 5:45 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Now, for the other regions, I can't say what the state of affairs is over there.
AfriNIC, APNIC and LACNIC have reached consensus on the proposal (where the wording matches with the one we have in RIPE). ARIN has not yet reached consensus on its version - they are still discussing it. It is also scheduled to be discussed in their next Public Policy Meeting, which will take place from 21 - 23 October 2009. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC
Sorry again for the confusion.
Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 141055
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
participants (9)
-
Filiz Yilmaz -
Gert Doering -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
Nick Hilliard -
Nigel Titley -
Randy Bush -
Ray Plzak -
Scott Leibrand -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet