Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space
Hello Members, I'd like to state a complaint toward overly complicated issues with requesting PI space as a LIR for a customer. Situation: I have a customer who's purchased a router and wants his own IP space+AS number to start multihoming. Since he's pretty new to routing and policies of RIPE and managing the database to keep things going, we as LIR offered him to do this for him at the startup phase. Currently he'll be hosting several services from within our PA ranges and will start growing his new resources in the PI space he wants. After filling in the request forms, his AS got approved pending the PI /24 range assignment. And that's been a process that's currently becoming something ridiculous. Initially I got some return questions on how the subnets would be sliced up, what would be used for management of the routers, if IP's are being assigned statically or dynamically, how much IP's a customer would use and if PA space is being returned. Questions (except for the 'how much IP's will a customer use') I can understand and all answered. Then in a follow-up I got asked what the montly growth is, who's administratively responsible for the IP's and how they're going to be used on the servers. Then in a next follow up I got pointed to using PA space either from us or a different provider or that the customer should become LIR himself since we as LIR cannot sub-allocate PI space. (something that's not intended in the first place at all, we just administer it on a contract base until he understands procedures) And then after explaining that we will only help the customer on contract base and not sub-allocate anything, another follow-up comes that no customer can use more then 1 or 2 IP's and once again a question on how many servers are involved here. And that's where I'm at now. I've been trying to request PI space for our customer since last friday, and in my opinion there's too much meddling into internal business by RIPE here and this is taking a ridiculous amount of time and communication. As a LIR we hand out IP space responsibly to our customers, for a good technical and administrative reason we have a customer who wants his own PI assignment and I'm asking him questions about his business that lean towards a company secret. In my opinion RIPE has absolutely no business in asking how many customers and/or servers someone has and stating that a customer can not use >2 IP's in that PI space (what if someone has *gasp* 3 SSL websites ?, I cannot imagine that happening.., ever). Also neither we or our customer has a crystal ball to see in the future, so sure I can tell the amount of customer growth I'll be expecting or HOPING to see, but come on. I know IPv4 space must be handed out responsibly, but this is seriously going too far, especially for a LIR. Supposedly I cannot give a routing-reason for requesting PI space, but part of that IS important on why I'm requesting it. It's really not desirable for us AND for my customer to chop out a part of my PA space and announce in smaller chunks from his own AS on the same exchange points we're on and this customer is NOT at the stage yet to become a full LIR himself. -- Met vriendelijke groet, Jeroen Wunnink, EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder systeembeheer@easyhosting.nl telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes http://www.easyhosting.nl http://www.easycolocate.nl
Hi Jeroen, 2 quick comments: regarding the supposedly irresponsible questions and - how I read between your lines, thus I may be wrong! - your feeling or impression of limited technical expertise of the hostmaster involved; I'd suggest that you try to escalate the ticket up the tree within the NCC. 2ndly, my feeling is that it would be more straightforward (and easier to live within the procedures) to have your customer establish its own LIR from the very beginning, with your team supplying the expertise and help to do so. I myself are in the game of cleaning up some PI stuff, within the new policy, and to get those resources moved to the LIRs which have been established in the meantime. My 2 centavos, Wilfried Jeroen Wunnink wrote:
Hello Members,
I'd like to state a complaint toward overly complicated issues with requesting PI space as a LIR for a customer.
Situation: I have a customer who's purchased a router and wants his own IP space+AS number to start multihoming. Since he's pretty new to routing and policies of RIPE and managing the database to keep things going, we as LIR offered him to do this for him at the startup phase. Currently he'll be hosting several services from within our PA ranges and will start growing his new resources in the PI space he wants.
After filling in the request forms, his AS got approved pending the PI /24 range assignment. And that's been a process that's currently becoming something ridiculous.
Initially I got some return questions on how the subnets would be sliced up, what would be used for management of the routers, if IP's are being assigned statically or dynamically, how much IP's a customer would use and if PA space is being returned. Questions (except for the 'how much IP's will a customer use') I can understand and all answered.
Then in a follow-up I got asked what the montly growth is, who's administratively responsible for the IP's and how they're going to be used on the servers.
Then in a next follow up I got pointed to using PA space either from us or a different provider or that the customer should become LIR himself since we as LIR cannot sub-allocate PI space. (something that's not intended in the first place at all, we just administer it on a contract base until he understands procedures)
And then after explaining that we will only help the customer on contract base and not sub-allocate anything, another follow-up comes that no customer can use more then 1 or 2 IP's and once again a question on how many servers are involved here.
And that's where I'm at now. I've been trying to request PI space for our customer since last friday, and in my opinion there's too much meddling into internal business by RIPE here and this is taking a ridiculous amount of time and communication.
As a LIR we hand out IP space responsibly to our customers, for a good technical and administrative reason we have a customer who wants his own PI assignment and I'm asking him questions about his business that lean towards a company secret. In my opinion RIPE has absolutely no business in asking how many customers and/or servers someone has and stating that a customer can not use >2 IP's in that PI space (what if someone has *gasp* 3 SSL websites ?, I cannot imagine that happening.., ever).
Also neither we or our customer has a crystal ball to see in the future, so sure I can tell the amount of customer growth I'll be expecting or HOPING to see, but come on.
I know IPv4 space must be handed out responsibly, but this is seriously going too far, especially for a LIR. Supposedly I cannot give a routing-reason for requesting PI space, but part of that IS important on why I'm requesting it. It's really not desirable for us AND for my customer to chop out a part of my PA space and announce in smaller chunks from his own AS on the same exchange points we're on and this customer is NOT at the stage yet to become a full LIR himself.
Hi Wilfried, No it's not intended to be an impression of limited technical expertise of the hostmaster, nor any other personal grudge against him. I know he's following policy on how address space needs to be handed out and he's doing his job on that, and that's where my problem seems to be, the overly harsh policy for PI allocations. I've upped this question to some other Dutch network operators/LIR's and it seems we're not alone in this issue and that it's overly hard and difficult to request PI resources. Yes of course he can become a LIR, but that's a lot more expensive for him. Our customer is trying to start his own network and if he can start doing some of the routing himself. Using a PI based IP and AS for that is more desirable then becoming a full blown LIR at this point. If his routing attempt turns out on nothing we can return the AS and PI or route the PI space for him through our equipment. Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Hi Jeroen,
2 quick comments: regarding the supposedly irresponsible questions and - how I read between your lines, thus I may be wrong! - your feeling or impression of limited technical expertise of the hostmaster involved; I'd suggest that you try to escalate the ticket up the tree within the NCC.
2ndly, my feeling is that it would be more straightforward (and easier to live within the procedures) to have your customer establish its own LIR from the very beginning, with your team supplying the expertise and help to do so.
I myself are in the game of cleaning up some PI stuff, within the new policy, and to get those resources moved to the LIRs which have been established in the meantime.
My 2 centavos, Wilfried
Jeroen Wunnink wrote:
Hello Members,
I'd like to state a complaint toward overly complicated issues with requesting PI space as a LIR for a customer.
Situation: I have a customer who's purchased a router and wants his own IP space+AS number to start multihoming. Since he's pretty new to routing and policies of RIPE and managing the database to keep things going, we as LIR offered him to do this for him at the startup phase. Currently he'll be hosting several services from within our PA ranges and will start growing his new resources in the PI space he wants.
After filling in the request forms, his AS got approved pending the PI /24 range assignment. And that's been a process that's currently becoming something ridiculous.
Initially I got some return questions on how the subnets would be sliced up, what would be used for management of the routers, if IP's are being assigned statically or dynamically, how much IP's a customer would use and if PA space is being returned. Questions (except for the 'how much IP's will a customer use') I can understand and all answered.
Then in a follow-up I got asked what the montly growth is, who's administratively responsible for the IP's and how they're going to be used on the servers.
Then in a next follow up I got pointed to using PA space either from us or a different provider or that the customer should become LIR himself since we as LIR cannot sub-allocate PI space. (something that's not intended in the first place at all, we just administer it on a contract base until he understands procedures)
And then after explaining that we will only help the customer on contract base and not sub-allocate anything, another follow-up comes that no customer can use more then 1 or 2 IP's and once again a question on how many servers are involved here.
And that's where I'm at now. I've been trying to request PI space for our customer since last friday, and in my opinion there's too much meddling into internal business by RIPE here and this is taking a ridiculous amount of time and communication.
As a LIR we hand out IP space responsibly to our customers, for a good technical and administrative reason we have a customer who wants his own PI assignment and I'm asking him questions about his business that lean towards a company secret. In my opinion RIPE has absolutely no business in asking how many customers and/or servers someone has and stating that a customer can not use >2 IP's in that PI space (what if someone has *gasp* 3 SSL websites ?, I cannot imagine that happening.., ever).
Also neither we or our customer has a crystal ball to see in the future, so sure I can tell the amount of customer growth I'll be expecting or HOPING to see, but come on.
I know IPv4 space must be handed out responsibly, but this is seriously going too far, especially for a LIR. Supposedly I cannot give a routing-reason for requesting PI space, but part of that IS important on why I'm requesting it. It's really not desirable for us AND for my customer to chop out a part of my PA space and announce in smaller chunks from his own AS on the same exchange points we're on and this customer is NOT at the stage yet to become a full LIR himself.
-- Met vriendelijke groet, Jeroen Wunnink, EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder systeembeheer@easyhosting.nl telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes http://www.easyhosting.nl http://www.easycolocate.nl
Jeroen Wunnink wrote: [..]
Yes of course he can become a LIR, but that's a lot more expensive for him. Our customer is trying to start his own network and if he can start doing some of the routing himself.
http://www.ripe.net/membership/billing/procedure.html Extra Small: 1300 EUR / year So, he is able to buy routing kit, hookups to IXs,, tansit and those things, but a LIR fee of 1300 EUR is too much? :) Drink a few less beers every week and you have that together. Sorry to say, but thinking of it from an ops perspective I do hope that this customer also has a correctly working abuse desk and people who are monitoring this network gear. (which means they have to caugh up for people and other resources there too which far exceeds those little fees). Because if they don't they are just another nuisance on the Internet.... (not that money should stop people from being able to use it mind you) Greets, Jeroen (okay, another 2k signup... but what is the deal, you can barely buy 1 proper 1U box for that total amount)
* Jeroen Wunnink:
Yes of course he can become a LIR, but that's a lot more expensive for him.
How does that change anything? For PA space, he'd have to demonstrate a need for a /21, not just for a /24, which is more difficult. I used to think that you'd get your initial assignment with basically no questions asked because you can't run an ISP without addresses and it's difficult to predict address space requirements without any experience, but this isn't the case. Of course, the net effect is that RIPE receives rather optimistic business plans because new LIRs need to somehow fullfil the minimum size requirements posed by RIPE NCC, or your LIR status is totally pointless. -- Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
Hi, On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 02:21:37PM +0000, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Jeroen Wunnink:
Yes of course he can become a LIR, but that's a lot more expensive for him.
How does that change anything? For PA space, he'd have to demonstrate a need for a /21, not just for a /24, which is more difficult.
As a LIR, to receive PA space, all you need to document is the wish to assign addresses to your customers (or to your infrastructure). "Demonstrate need for the whole initial PA allocation" is a thing we had in the policy for a while, but got rid of that about 5 years ago (because all it did was "make startup ISPs go for multiple PI instead"). Please do not post outdated policy information. 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
* Gert Doering:
As a LIR, to receive PA space, all you need to document is the wish to assign addresses to your customers (or to your infrastructure).
"Demonstrate need for the whole initial PA allocation" is a thing we had in the policy for a while, but got rid of that about 5 years ago (because all it did was "make startup ISPs go for multiple PI instead").
Please do not post outdated policy information.
Gert, perhaps it will surprise you, but we've turned LIR only very recently. 8-) My comment wasn't about policy, but about policy as implemented by RIPE NCC. I was as surprised as you apparently are---the information available to us before gaining LIR status and requesting initial assignment did not document any minimum size requirement or growth expectations for LIRs. (Thanks for confirming that, by the way.) -- Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
Dear Jeroen, Florian and all, The RIPE NCC has an internal escalation procedure for handling concerns about the way your request has been handled. You can ask for any request to be escalated by sending an email to hostmaster@ripe.net and quoting the relevant NCC# ticket number. Your request will then be reviewed and assessed by senior staff. If your concern is of a more serious nature, please refer to the RIPE NCC's Conflict Arbitration Procedure available online at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/arbitration.html Regards, Laura Cobley RIPE NCC Registration Services Jeroen Wunnink wrote:
Hello Members,
I'd like to state a complaint toward overly complicated issues with requesting PI space as a LIR for a customer.
Situation: I have a customer who's purchased a router and wants his own IP space+AS number to start multihoming. Since he's pretty new to routing and policies of RIPE and managing the database to keep things going, we as LIR offered him to do this for him at the startup phase. Currently he'll be hosting several services from within our PA ranges and will start growing his new resources in the PI space he wants.
After filling in the request forms, his AS got approved pending the PI /24 range assignment. And that's been a process that's currently becoming something ridiculous.
Initially I got some return questions on how the subnets would be sliced up, what would be used for management of the routers, if IP's are being assigned statically or dynamically, how much IP's a customer would use and if PA space is being returned. Questions (except for the 'how much IP's will a customer use') I can understand and all answered.
Then in a follow-up I got asked what the montly growth is, who's administratively responsible for the IP's and how they're going to be used on the servers.
Then in a next follow up I got pointed to using PA space either from us or a different provider or that the customer should become LIR himself since we as LIR cannot sub-allocate PI space. (something that's not intended in the first place at all, we just administer it on a contract base until he understands procedures)
And then after explaining that we will only help the customer on contract base and not sub-allocate anything, another follow-up comes that no customer can use more then 1 or 2 IP's and once again a question on how many servers are involved here.
And that's where I'm at now. I've been trying to request PI space for our customer since last friday, and in my opinion there's too much meddling into internal business by RIPE here and this is taking a ridiculous amount of time and communication.
As a LIR we hand out IP space responsibly to our customers, for a good technical and administrative reason we have a customer who wants his own PI assignment and I'm asking him questions about his business that lean towards a company secret. In my opinion RIPE has absolutely no business in asking how many customers and/or servers someone has and stating that a customer can not use >2 IP's in that PI space (what if someone has *gasp* 3 SSL websites ?, I cannot imagine that happening.., ever).
Also neither we or our customer has a crystal ball to see in the future, so sure I can tell the amount of customer growth I'll be expecting or HOPING to see, but come on.
I know IPv4 space must be handed out responsibly, but this is seriously going too far, especially for a LIR. Supposedly I cannot give a routing-reason for requesting PI space, but part of that IS important on why I'm requesting it. It's really not desirable for us AND for my customer to chop out a part of my PA space and announce in smaller chunks from his own AS on the same exchange points we're on and this customer is NOT at the stage yet to become a full LIR himself.
Hi Laura, Thanks, I already got into a discussion with Alex Le Heux, the policy implementation coordinator. My initial mail is meant to open a bit of a discussion on questions asked for PI allocations, mainly because I had to pull customer and growth statistics from my own customer that were none of my business to be honest. The situation is so, that we're a fairly large hosting and colocation provider, not the biggest by far but we come a long way in the dutch market. We have several smaller customers that rent a bunch of 19" racks but are usually in the same market as we are. So when a customer becomes bigger, we try and help and give some pointers to for example start routing themselves. We have very good relations with our customers, but once I have to pull detailed growth and customer statistics from our customers, it gets kinda awkward. Because these really aren't any of my (or RIPE's for that matter) business. I'm all for responsible allocation of resources, but it should really stop at asking expected growth for IP space and how subnets are to be allocated. I got pointed to the rule 'A customer cannot hold more then 2 IP addresses in the PI space', what's up with that ? This means that a customer with three SSL webshops and three IP's isn't allowed host his server in that PI range ? Also an eyebrow raiser : 'Your customer should become LIR himself'. So now I'd have to make up a story to justify a /21 for him (which he doesn't need yet) rather then a /24 + AS, which is the bare minimum to start routing on the internet ? I know it's all policy to hand out resources as good and honestly as possible, but (and this opinion is shared by more Dutch network operators I spoke with today) requesting PI space feels like pulling teeth and takes up far too much time like this. Laura Cobley wrote:
Dear Jeroen, Florian and all,
The RIPE NCC has an internal escalation procedure for handling concerns about the way your request has been handled. You can ask for any request to be escalated by sending an email to hostmaster@ripe.net and quoting the relevant NCC# ticket number. Your request will then be reviewed and assessed by senior staff.
If your concern is of a more serious nature, please refer to the RIPE NCC's Conflict Arbitration Procedure available online at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/arbitration.html
Regards,
Laura Cobley RIPE NCC Registration Services
Jeroen Wunnink wrote:
Hello Members,
I'd like to state a complaint toward overly complicated issues with requesting PI space as a LIR for a customer.
Situation: I have a customer who's purchased a router and wants his own IP space+AS number to start multihoming. Since he's pretty new to routing and policies of RIPE and managing the database to keep things going, we as LIR offered him to do this for him at the startup phase. Currently he'll be hosting several services from within our PA ranges and will start growing his new resources in the PI space he wants.
After filling in the request forms, his AS got approved pending the PI /24 range assignment. And that's been a process that's currently becoming something ridiculous.
Initially I got some return questions on how the subnets would be sliced up, what would be used for management of the routers, if IP's are being assigned statically or dynamically, how much IP's a customer would use and if PA space is being returned. Questions (except for the 'how much IP's will a customer use') I can understand and all answered.
Then in a follow-up I got asked what the montly growth is, who's administratively responsible for the IP's and how they're going to be used on the servers.
Then in a next follow up I got pointed to using PA space either from us or a different provider or that the customer should become LIR himself since we as LIR cannot sub-allocate PI space. (something that's not intended in the first place at all, we just administer it on a contract base until he understands procedures)
And then after explaining that we will only help the customer on contract base and not sub-allocate anything, another follow-up comes that no customer can use more then 1 or 2 IP's and once again a question on how many servers are involved here.
And that's where I'm at now. I've been trying to request PI space for our customer since last friday, and in my opinion there's too much meddling into internal business by RIPE here and this is taking a ridiculous amount of time and communication.
As a LIR we hand out IP space responsibly to our customers, for a good technical and administrative reason we have a customer who wants his own PI assignment and I'm asking him questions about his business that lean towards a company secret. In my opinion RIPE has absolutely no business in asking how many customers and/or servers someone has and stating that a customer can not use >2 IP's in that PI space (what if someone has *gasp* 3 SSL websites ?, I cannot imagine that happening.., ever).
Also neither we or our customer has a crystal ball to see in the future, so sure I can tell the amount of customer growth I'll be expecting or HOPING to see, but come on.
I know IPv4 space must be handed out responsibly, but this is seriously going too far, especially for a LIR. Supposedly I cannot give a routing-reason for requesting PI space, but part of that IS important on why I'm requesting it. It's really not desirable for us AND for my customer to chop out a part of my PA space and announce in smaller chunks from his own AS on the same exchange points we're on and this customer is NOT at the stage yet to become a full LIR himself.
-- Met vriendelijke groet, Jeroen Wunnink, EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder systeembeheer@easyhosting.nl telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes http://www.easyhosting.nl http://www.easycolocate.nl
Hi, Jeroen Wunnink schrieb: [...]
Also an eyebrow raiser : 'Your customer should become LIR himself'. So now I'd have to make up a story to justify a /21 for him (which he doesn't need yet) rather then a /24 + AS, which is the bare minimum to start routing on the internet ? [...]
you don't need to justify anything to get your /21 Allocation if you become a LIR. It's an ALLOCATION, not an ASSIGNMENT. Don't always mix those two up, totally different things. It's way more simple than requesting PI Assignments if you are a an ISP/Provider yourself. LIR with PA Allocations == Provider/ISPs Customer with PI Assignments == Endusers, not distributing IP space to 3rd parties If your customer is not an enduser but got customers themselves, they should become LIR on their own behalf. I actually don't see the problem. But of course things can be changed, the policy process is open. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Jeroen Wunnink<jeroen@easyhosting.nl> wrote:
We have very good relations with our customers, but once I have to pull detailed growth and customer statistics from our customers, it gets kinda awkward. Because these really aren't any of my (or RIPE's for that matter) business.
I'm not sure that's your call to make. I'm all for responsible allocation of resources, but it should
really stop at asking expected growth for IP space and how subnets are to be allocated.
I got pointed to the rule 'A customer cannot hold more then 2 IP addresses in the PI space', what's up with that ?
IIRC it's more of a guideline than a "rule" Rules are in the policy document where it says: "PI space cannot be re-assigned or further assigned to other parties." So if you are indeed assigning adresses to your customers, you need PA space. I'm sure that the competent professionals at the NCC have pointed you to http://ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-471.html#9 already. This means that a customer with
three SSL webshops and three IP's isn't allowed host his server in that PI range ?
A customer is't "allowed" to do anything with your PI space. You are however allowed to use it to support your business. If I were you, I'd follow the advice of the NCC staff. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
No it indeed isn't my call to make, which is why I opened a discussion here on the policy workgroup list. The current policy is in my opinion a bit too intrusive and time consuming, and I wanted to see if that opinion is shared by more people. And if the two IP's are a guideline, why did the hostmaster give me, i quote: If <insert our customer name here> customers are allowed to manage how more than 4 IP addresses are used on this network, then PI addressing space cannot be used. Please confirm that even after the customer's network has been expanded in the future, they will not be allowed to administrate more than a /30. And it's not my PI space/resource (that's not even possible as a LIR), It's been requested by us as a LIR on behalf of the customer on his name and own ORG object. McTim wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Jeroen Wunnink<jeroen@easyhosting.nl> wrote:
We have very good relations with our customers, but once I have to pull detailed growth and customer statistics from our customers, it gets kinda awkward. Because these really aren't any of my (or RIPE's for that matter) business.
I'm not sure that's your call to make.
I'm all for responsible allocation of resources, but it should
really stop at asking expected growth for IP space and how subnets are to be allocated.
I got pointed to the rule 'A customer cannot hold more then 2 IP addresses in the PI space', what's up with that ?
IIRC it's more of a guideline than a "rule" Rules are in the policy document where it says:
"PI space cannot be re-assigned or further assigned to other parties."
So if you are indeed assigning adresses to your customers, you need PA space. I'm sure that the competent professionals at the NCC have pointed you to http://ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-471.html#9 already.
This means that a customer with
three SSL webshops and three IP's isn't allowed host his server in that PI range ?
A customer is't "allowed" to do anything with your PI space. You are however allowed to use it to support your business. If I were you, I'd follow the advice of the NCC staff.
-- Met vriendelijke groet, Jeroen Wunnink, EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder systeembeheer@easyhosting.nl telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes http://www.easyhosting.nl http://www.easycolocate.nl
If you ask me it should be allowed to use PI space for clients (and give clients the option to use/maintain more than a /30 (IPv4)). It is also in my opinion not to RIPE (community or the NCC) to ask that information. The should ask for general usage, how much would be used for clients for example. How many clients a company has shouldn't be important to get PI. Regards, Mark -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jeroen Wunnink Sent: donderdag 16 juli 2009 14:46 To: McTim Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space No it indeed isn't my call to make, which is why I opened a discussion here on the policy workgroup list. The current policy is in my opinion a bit too intrusive and time consuming, and I wanted to see if that opinion is shared by more people. And if the two IP's are a guideline, why did the hostmaster give me, i quote: If <insert our customer name here> customers are allowed to manage how more than 4 IP addresses are used on this network, then PI addressing space cannot be used. Please confirm that even after the customer's network has been expanded in the future, they will not be allowed to administrate more than a /30. And it's not my PI space/resource (that's not even possible as a LIR), It's been requested by us as a LIR on behalf of the customer on his name and own ORG object. McTim wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Jeroen Wunnink<jeroen@easyhosting.nl> wrote:
We have very good relations with our customers, but once I have to pull detailed growth and customer statistics from our customers, it gets kinda awkward. Because these really aren't any of my (or RIPE's for that matter) business.
I'm not sure that's your call to make.
I'm all for responsible allocation of resources, but it should
really stop at asking expected growth for IP space and how subnets are to be allocated.
I got pointed to the rule 'A customer cannot hold more then 2 IP addresses in the PI space', what's up with that ?
IIRC it's more of a guideline than a "rule" Rules are in the policy document where it says:
"PI space cannot be re-assigned or further assigned to other parties."
So if you are indeed assigning adresses to your customers, you need PA space. I'm sure that the competent professionals at the NCC have pointed you to http://ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-471.html#9 already.
This means that a customer with
three SSL webshops and three IP's isn't allowed host his server in that PI range ?
A customer is't "allowed" to do anything with your PI space. You are however allowed to use it to support your business. If I were you, I'd follow the advice of the NCC staff.
-- Met vriendelijke groet, Jeroen Wunnink, EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder systeembeheer@easyhosting.nl telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes http://www.easyhosting.nl http://www.easycolocate.nl
Hi, Stream Service || Mark Scholten schrieb:
If you ask me it should be allowed to use PI space for clients (and give clients the option to use/maintain more than a /30 (IPv4)). It is also in my opinion not to RIPE (community or the NCC) to ask that information. The should ask for general usage, how much would be used for clients for example. How many clients a company has shouldn't be important to get PI. [...]
again - Assignments are made to End-Users. If you are not an End-User, you need to become LIR and get an Allocation from which you can assign to End-Users. If you have an Assigment, it's for YOU, and YOU only, not any 3rd parties. This is a basic concept for ages. It's very simple. What is so hard to understand there and where is your problem with that? -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
Hello Mark,
If you ask me it should be allowed to use PI space for clients (and give clients the option to use/maintain more than a /30 (IPv4)).
PI policy explicitly states that PI space can not be re-assigned or further assigned to other parties. See http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-471.html#9 . Any organisation that needs address space for its customers must use PA space. The definition of an LIR is that it assigns address space to its customers. PI space is (per definition) only to be used by the company that requested it itself.
It is also in my opinion not to RIPE (community or the NCC) to ask that information. The should ask for general usage, how much would be used for clients for example. How many clients a company has shouldn't be important to get PI.
In this case it doesn't matter. That the company needs address space for *any* customers indicates that PI space is not appropriate and PA space should be used. The company uses address space for customers and therefore must become an LIR. I think it is now time to stop this discussion, at least on the address policy mailing list. This discussion is not leading to a viable policy proposal. Thanks, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair
Hello Sander, Thank you for the clear reply. If I combine this with other things on the mailing list in the last 3 weeks I agree with you that it is better to request a /21 range (you get it when you become a LIR) compared to a /24 (PI) if you just need a /24. This is clearly the best way to conserve IPv4 address space. With kind regards, Mark Scholten -----Original Message----- From: Sander Steffann [mailto:sander@steffann.nl] Sent: donderdag 16 juli 2009 22:01 To: Stream Service || Mark Scholten Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space Hello Mark,
If you ask me it should be allowed to use PI space for clients (and give clients the option to use/maintain more than a /30 (IPv4)).
PI policy explicitly states that PI space can not be re-assigned or further assigned to other parties. See http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-471.html#9 . Any organisation that needs address space for its customers must use PA space. The definition of an LIR is that it assigns address space to its customers. PI space is (per definition) only to be used by the company that requested it itself.
It is also in my opinion not to RIPE (community or the NCC) to ask that information. The should ask for general usage, how much would be used for clients for example. How many clients a company has shouldn't be important to get PI.
In this case it doesn't matter. That the company needs address space for *any* customers indicates that PI space is not appropriate and PA space should be used. The company uses address space for customers and therefore must become an LIR. I think it is now time to stop this discussion, at least on the address policy mailing list. This discussion is not leading to a viable policy proposal. Thanks, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair
Hi Mark, It is heartening to see that your drive to conservation of IPv4 space alone is pushing you to put all this effort in to get PI space. I¹m sure we can suggest a policy change approved that would set the standard initial allocation to /21 but allow for smaller allocations up to /24 if specifically requested by the new LIR. Best, Remco On 17-07-09 13:48, "Stream Service || Mark Scholten" <mark@streamservice.nl> wrote:
Hello Sander,
Thank you for the clear reply. If I combine this with other things on the mailing list in the last 3 weeks I agree with you that it is better to request a /21 range (you get it when you become a LIR) compared to a /24 (PI) if you just need a /24. This is clearly the best way to conserve IPv4 address space.
With kind regards,
Mark Scholten
-----Original Message----- From: Sander Steffann [mailto:sander@steffann.nl] Sent: donderdag 16 juli 2009 22:01 To: Stream Service || Mark Scholten Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space
Hello Mark,
If you ask me it should be allowed to use PI space for clients (and give clients the option to use/maintain more than a /30 (IPv4)).
PI policy explicitly states that PI space can not be re-assigned or further assigned to other parties. See http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-471.html#9 . Any organisation that needs address space for its customers must use PA space. The definition of an LIR is that it assigns address space to its customers. PI space is (per definition) only to be used by the company that requested it itself.
It is also in my opinion not to RIPE (community or the NCC) to ask that information. The should ask for general usage, how much would be used for clients for example. How many clients a company has shouldn't be important to get PI.
In this case it doesn't matter. That the company needs address space for *any* customers indicates that PI space is not appropriate and PA space should be used. The company uses address space for customers and therefore must become an LIR.
I think it is now time to stop this discussion, at least on the address policy mailing list. This discussion is not leading to a viable policy proposal.
Thanks, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.
Hi, Remco van Mook schrieb:
Hi Mark,
It is heartening to see that your drive to conservation of IPv4 space alone is pushing you to put all this effort in to get PI space. I’m sure we can suggest a policy change approved that would set the standard initial allocation to /21 but allow for smaller allocations up to /24 if specifically requested by the new LIR.
[...] ... apart from the fact that i don't think the whole community agrees that we need any form of IPv4 conservation anyways :-) ... i think this would be the apropriate step here, yes. I would support a more "floating" (first) allocation policy, because even that i think that we don't need to conserve IPv4 space too much, i also don't think that we need to waste it either if there are other simple options like what you suggest (smaller Allocation on request or so). -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
Sascha Lenz wrote: [...]
I would support a more "floating" (first) allocation policy, because even that i think that we don't need to conserve IPv4 space too much, i also don't think that we need to waste it either if there are other simple options like what you suggest (smaller Allocation on request or so).
While it may be an intersting idea in light of conservation, there's a good operational reason why all the LIR Allocations are of equal (minimum) size: filtering on prefix length. :-) Wilfried.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:25:45AM -0200, McTim wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Jeroen Wunnink<jeroen@easyhosting.nl> wrote:
We have very good relations with our customers, but once I have to pull detailed growth and customer statistics from our customers, it gets kinda awkward. Because these really aren't any of my (or RIPE's for that matter) business.
I'm not sure that's your call to make.
I'm all for responsible allocation of resources, but it should
really stop at asking expected growth for IP space and how subnets are to be allocated.
I got pointed to the rule 'A customer cannot hold more then 2 IP addresses in the PI space', what's up with that ?
IIRC it's more of a guideline than a "rule" Rules are in the policy document where it says:
"PI space cannot be re-assigned or further assigned to other parties."
So if you are indeed assigning adresses to your customers, you need PA space. I'm sure that the competent professionals at the NCC have pointed you to http://ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-471.html#9 already.
It is not the case. According to http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-471.html#62 single IP assigned to End User "considered part of the service provider's infrastructure". Moreover, if service provider assign several IPs to the same End User and these IPs could not be aggregated (covered with common netmask) they are still considered SP infrastructure. Where I wrong? -- Dmitry Kiselev
Hello Jeroen, I see questions from NCC hostmaster you said were correct and adequate to the policy. I can understand why each question you said was asked. If you have no experience in PI/AS delegation, you can ask companies (like we are ;) ) specializing on this topic, and they can prepare the good request and deal with hostmasters' bueracracy. The only question is why they approve the AS request before PI one. Did you list your PA space in the AS request in prefix: field? Jeroen Wunnink wrote:
Hello Members,
I'd like to state a complaint toward overly complicated issues with requesting PI space as a LIR for a customer.
Situation: I have a customer who's purchased a router and wants his own IP space+AS number to start multihoming. Since he's pretty new to routing and policies of RIPE and managing the database to keep things going, we as LIR offered him to do this for him at the startup phase. Currently he'll be hosting several services from within our PA ranges and will start growing his new resources in the PI space he wants.
After filling in the request forms, his AS got approved pending the PI /24 range assignment. And that's been a process that's currently becoming something ridiculous.
Initially I got some return questions on how the subnets would be sliced up, what would be used for management of the routers, if IP's are being assigned statically or dynamically, how much IP's a customer would use and if PA space is being returned. Questions (except for the 'how much IP's will a customer use') I can understand and all answered.
Then in a follow-up I got asked what the montly growth is, who's administratively responsible for the IP's and how they're going to be used on the servers.
Then in a next follow up I got pointed to using PA space either from us or a different provider or that the customer should become LIR himself since we as LIR cannot sub-allocate PI space. (something that's not intended in the first place at all, we just administer it on a contract base until he understands procedures)
And then after explaining that we will only help the customer on contract base and not sub-allocate anything, another follow-up comes that no customer can use more then 1 or 2 IP's and once again a question on how many servers are involved here.
And that's where I'm at now. I've been trying to request PI space for our customer since last friday, and in my opinion there's too much meddling into internal business by RIPE here and this is taking a ridiculous amount of time and communication.
As a LIR we hand out IP space responsibly to our customers, for a good technical and administrative reason we have a customer who wants his own PI assignment and I'm asking him questions about his business that lean towards a company secret. In my opinion RIPE has absolutely no business in asking how many customers and/or servers someone has and stating that a customer can not use >2 IP's in that PI space (what if someone has *gasp* 3 SSL websites ?, I cannot imagine that happening.., ever).
Also neither we or our customer has a crystal ball to see in the future, so sure I can tell the amount of customer growth I'll be expecting or HOPING to see, but come on.
I know IPv4 space must be handed out responsibly, but this is seriously going too far, especially for a LIR. Supposedly I cannot give a routing-reason for requesting PI space, but part of that IS important on why I'm requesting it. It's really not desirable for us AND for my customer to chop out a part of my PA space and announce in smaller chunks from his own AS on the same exchange points we're on and this customer is NOT at the stage yet to become a full LIR himself.
-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
participants (13)
-
Dmitry Kiselev -
Florian Weimer -
Gert Doering -
Jeroen Massar -
Jeroen Wunnink -
Laura Cobley -
Max Tulyev -
McTim -
Remco van Mook -
Sander Steffann -
Sascha Lenz -
Stream Service || Mark Scholten -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet