Re: [address-policy-wg] Revert Run Out Fairly after IPv4 depletion
Dear Colleagues
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
I see the noble goal of this proposal - but why bother? Do we have even enough time for this proposal to become valid policy change according to all valid rules of PDP?
http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-poo...
According to this graph we have one month to go.
Cheers, Jan Zorz
Reading over http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion 5.0 states "As of 1 July 2011, the RIPE NCC will start allocating enough address space to LIRs to meet their needs for a period of up to three months." Can someone explain to me how these two recent allocations fit into this rule (extracted from the delegated file): ripencc|IR|ipv4|5.112.0.0|1048576|20120629|allocated ripencc|IR|ipv4|5.208.0.0|1048576|20120904|allocated -Hank
* Hank Nussbacher
Reading over http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06
Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion
5.0 states "As of 1 July 2011, the RIPE NCC will start allocating enough address space to LIRs to meet their needs for a period of up to three months."
Can someone explain to me how these two recent allocations fit into this rule (extracted from the delegated file):
ripencc|IR|ipv4|5.112.0.0|1048576|20120629|allocated ripencc|IR|ipv4|5.208.0.0|1048576|20120904|allocated
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here - is there any reason why they wouldn't «fit into this rule»? The LIRs in question had probably used over 80% of their current allocations (if they had any), documented their need for IPv4 addresses for the coming three months, and received allocations to cover that need. In other words, there's probably nothing special about them at all. It's still more or less business as usual at the NCC, as we've not yet reached the last /8. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
At 09:19 10/09/2012 +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Hank Nussbacher
Reading over http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06
Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion
5.0 states "As of 1 July 2011, the RIPE NCC will start allocating enough address space to LIRs to meet their needs for a period of up to three months."
Can someone explain to me how these two recent allocations fit into this rule (extracted from the delegated file):
ripencc|IR|ipv4|5.112.0.0|1048576|20120629|allocated ripencc|IR|ipv4|5.208.0.0|1048576|20120904|allocated
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here - is there any reason why they wouldn't «fit into this rule»?
The LIRs in question had probably used over 80% of their current allocations (if they had any), documented their need for IPv4 addresses for the coming three months, and received allocations to cover that need.
1 million IP addresses needed in a 3 month period? Fascinating. -Hank
In other words, there's probably nothing special about them at all. It's still more or less business as usual at the NCC, as we've not yet reached the last /8.
-- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
* Hank Nussbacher
1 million IP addresses needed in a 3 month period? Fascinating.
Sure, why not? 5.112.0.0/11, for example, seems to be delegated to a mobile operator in a developing country with a population of 75M people. That they need lots of IPv4 addresses should come as no surprise. (Compare the allocations being made in the APNIC area in the time leading up to their free pool depletion.) Your two examples aren't uniquely large, either: ripencc|DE|ipv4|37.80.0.0|1048576|20120124|allocated ripencc|FR|ipv4|37.160.0.0|1048576|20120308|allocated ripencc|FR|ipv4|176.128.0.0|4194304|20110706|allocated Bottom line is - there are about 2.5M addresses left in the NCC's free pool. If you need them all, you can have them all. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Am 10.09.2012 09:19, schrieb Tore Anderson:
5.0 states "As of 1 July 2011, the RIPE NCC will start allocating enough address space to LIRs to meet their needs for a period of up to three months."
Can someone explain to me how these two recent allocations fit into this rule (extracted from the delegated file):
ripencc|IR|ipv4|5.112.0.0|1048576|20120629|allocated ripencc|IR|ipv4|5.208.0.0|1048576|20120904|allocated
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here - is there any reason why they wouldn't «fit into this rule»?
The LIRs in question had probably used over 80% of their current allocations (if they had any), documented their need for IPv4 addresses for the coming three months, and received allocations to cover that need. In other words, there's probably nothing special about them at all. It's still more or less business as usual at the NCC, as we've not yet reached the last /8.
Nope. If you look at the allocation history of the two members which received these /12, I hardly doubt they are actually going to use this space within the next 3 months. One member received a total of less than /14 within two years, and the other member got his last /14 two about years ago. We all know that inflated allocation requests have been common habit in the past in this community but as we are going to run out within weeks or even days I do expect the hostmaster team to watch this with more care, especially when working on large requests. -- Fredy Künzler Init7 / AS13030
* Fredy Kuenzler
Nope. If you look at the allocation history of the two members which received these /12, I hardly doubt they are actually going to use this space within the next 3 months. One member received a total of less than /14 within two years, and the other member got his last /14 two about years ago.
Neither of us have access to the supporting documentation for either of these two tickets, so this would be pure conjecture on your part. How knows, maybe they both have a million customers behind a CGN they plan on shutting off?
We all know that inflated allocation requests have been common habit in the past in this community but as we are going to run out within weeks or even days I do expect the hostmaster team to watch this with more care, especially when working on large requests.
I'm certain that they do. I recall reading or hearing somewhere that allocations of size /16 and larger are approved by a special committee in addition to the resource analyst that processed the request (didn't find a link though), so I feel confident that the NCC isn't arbitrarily giving out more addresses to LIRs than the request justifies. Recently, the resource analysts began working in pairs in order to further minimise the chances of inequality - see <http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/last-8-phases>. If you have reason to believe one or both of the LIRs in question have committed fraud by forging their documentation, then I suppose that is something you should discuss directly with the NCC. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Dear all, Regarding the comments on allocations in the run-up to reaching the last /8, we would like to assure you that all requests are met with the highest level of care and due diligence. We do not make public the details of specific requests or the documentation provided by our members, but we are happy to explain the procedures used when evaluating these requests. All allocations and assignments are evaluated in accordance with RIPE Policy and full documentation is required before a request is approved. The relevant policies are listed in ripe-556, "Due Diligence for the Quality of the RIPE NCC Registration Data": https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-556 By default, all large Internet resource requests (/15 or larger for PA IPv4, /18 or larger for PI IPv4 and /28 or larger for IPv6) are evaluated by: - Two IP Resource Analysts (IPRAs) - The Registration Services Manager - The Policy Development Officer - At least two Senior Managers In Phase 1 of reaching the last /8, every request for IPv4 address space is evaluated by two IPRAs, regardless of the size of the request. We would also like to note that requests for IPv4 address space are handled in strict order of receipt by the next available IPRA. Further information on the procedures followed by the RIPE NCC to ensure correct and consistent evaluations of resource requests is available at: http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/last-8-phases http://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/168-NCC-Services-final.pdf http://ripe63.ripe.net/presentations/137-end-game.pdf If you have any questions on the RIPE NCC's procedures in the run-up to reaching the last /8, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Andrea Cima Registration Services RIPE NCC
It’s a shame, a company with fraudulent methods receive 1 million IP address for next three months but my company after giving all requested statics will receive /22 subnet instead of at least /14 subnet!!! On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Andrea Cima <andrea@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear all,
Regarding the comments on allocations in the run-up to reaching the last /8, we would like to assure you that all requests are met with the highest level of care and due diligence. We do not make public the details of specific requests or the documentation provided by our members, but we are happy to explain the procedures used when evaluating these requests.
All allocations and assignments are evaluated in accordance with RIPE Policy and full documentation is required before a request is approved. The relevant policies are listed in ripe-556, "Due Diligence for the Quality of the RIPE NCC Registration Data": https://www.ripe.net/ripe/**docs/ripe-556<https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-556>
By default, all large Internet resource requests (/15 or larger for PA IPv4, /18 or larger for PI IPv4 and /28 or larger for IPv6) are evaluated by: - Two IP Resource Analysts (IPRAs) - The Registration Services Manager - The Policy Development Officer - At least two Senior Managers
In Phase 1 of reaching the last /8, every request for IPv4 address space is evaluated by two IPRAs, regardless of the size of the request.
We would also like to note that requests for IPv4 address space are handled in strict order of receipt by the next available IPRA.
Further information on the procedures followed by the RIPE NCC to ensure correct and consistent evaluations of resource requests is available at: http://www.ripe.net/internet-**coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/** last-8-phases<http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/last-8-phases> http://ripe64.ripe.net/**presentations/168-NCC-**Services-final.pdf<http://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/168-NCC-Services-final.pdf> http://ripe63.ripe.net/**presentations/137-end-game.pdf<http://ripe63.ripe.net/presentations/137-end-game.pdf>
If you have any questions on the RIPE NCC's procedures in the run-up to reaching the last /8, please feel free to contact me.
Best regards, Andrea Cima Registration Services RIPE NCC
-- I Hamed Shafaghi I I Managing Director I I Skydsl® Telecom I hamed@skydsl.ir I www.skydsl.ir I
Hi, On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 06:50:00PM +0430, Hamed Shafaghi wrote:
It?s a shame, a company with fraudulent methods receive 1 million IP address for next three months but my company after giving all requested statics will receive /22 subnet instead of at least /14 subnet!!!
While I can understand the frustration of everybody who has not received the amount of IPv4 addresses they have requested or hoped for, please do not vent your steam on the APWG list. We have told everybody that this was coming, and IPv6 was available from the RIPE NCC since August 1998. So just accept the fact that IPv4 is over, and move on. Nothing to see here. (The train wrecks will be in Geoff's presentation) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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
Hi Gert, It seems you want to force me to accept receive a 1 million IP address for next three months is fair?? Also please be informed that IPv6 is not routed in IRAN at least for 1 year.
Hi Hamed,
It seems you want to force me to accept receive a 1 million IP address for next three months is fair??
It can be, depending on *many* factors. I know that the RIPE NCC IPRA's have been very thorough when checking documentation for requests, so if they approved a request it must have had good documentation. If you really have good grounds to base your accusation of fraud on then you can contact the RIPE NCC and ask them to look at it. This has been documented in RIPE-423 (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-423)
Also please be informed that IPv6 is not routed in IRAN at least for 1 year.
That is a problem that Iran has to fix. There is no more IPv4 available to support further growth. I have seen the same in other countries in the Middle East. In most cases where are ways to tunnel IPv6 traffic over the existing IPv4 infrastructure. It is far from optimal, but it does give you some options. A well-known one is tunnelbroker.net by Hurricane Electric. They also support announcing your own address space with BGP over the tunnel. I know the shortage of IPv4 addresses is annoying, but the whole community has seen this coming for years. Network operators should have prepared for this moment long ago, but I understand the frustration if your national telco operator has not done its job and you are still required to use their services... - Sander
Hi Sander, Thanks for your attention and your guides About paragraph 1 I will follow your instructions. And about paragraph 2 I must say using any type of tunnel (really any type) in IRAN is illegal and have injunction for 6 month to 1 year imprisonment. There are many problems about implementing IPv6 in IRAN that I do want to write about them here. Obviously I do not have any hope of launching IPv6 in IRAN in next 12 months.
Hi Hamed,
Thanks for your attention and your guides
About paragraph 1 I will follow your instructions.
And about paragraph 2 I must say using any type of tunnel (really any type) in IRAN is illegal and have injunction for 6 month to 1 year imprisonment.
Ouch!
There are many problems about implementing IPv6 in IRAN that I do want to write about them here. Obviously I do not have any hope of launching IPv6 in IRAN in next 12 months.
Then running the network will probably have to focus on work-arounds until IPv6 arrives in Iran. I hope that the news today makes things move a bit faster in your country. - Sander
On 14/09/2012, at 16.39, Hamed Shafaghi <hamed@skydsl.ir> wrote:
Hi Gert, Dear Hamed
It seems you want to force me to accept receive a 1 million IP address for next three months is fair??
Please understand this in the most constructive way. IPv4 pool depletion has not happened overnight. I have had various request tickets sent and approved throughout the last years, for myself and customers. If you today are left without addresses it is sad, but it can only be because you did NOT see this coming. Who is to blame? You blame RIPE? Whereas I think we can agree that RIPE has been very open as to their methods, processing and so on.
Also please be informed that IPv6 is not routed in IRAN at least for 1 year.
If the country of Iran did NOT expect IPv6 to come, it is not our fault. It is probably is not your fault either. Do your best to persuade the people who can help to accelerate adoption of IPv6! You are always welcome to create tunnels for IPv6 across IPv4, I might even encourage you to do so! but blaming RIPE and accusing them of using "fraudulent methods", just STOP IT! If you want solutions, be constructive, and I am very sure lots of people will do their best to help you :-) Best regards Henrik -- Henrik Lund Kramshøj, Follower of the Great Way of Unix internet samurai cand.scient CISSP hlk@kramse.org hlk@solidonetworks.com +45 2026 6000 http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler
Hi Henrik, Please be calm down, I think you are confused; I do not blaming RIPE NCC at all. We talk about another company NOT RIPE NCC. Regards
Hi, On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 07:09:06PM +0430, Hamed Shafaghi wrote:
It seems you want to force me to accept receive a 1 million IP address for next three months is fair??
IPv4 run-out is not fair, for nobody. Someone was lucky in getting the last large block, many people came a few minutes too late.
Also please be informed that IPv6 is not routed in IRAN at least for 1 year.
Then route it. If needed, there are lots of people that are willing to provide help in setting up IPv6 - be it helping with router config, providing IPv6 tunnels if necessary, etc. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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
Hi, Please read my text carefully. Nationwide Fiber optic infrastructure and internet gateway operated by government and they do not have a short-term plan for IPv6 at this moment also using any type of tunnel in Iran is illegal and if we use this it is push me to jail for at least 6 months. Again please read my text carefully
Hi, On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 09:47:39PM +0430, Hamed Shafaghi wrote:
Please read my text carefully.
Nationwide Fiber optic infrastructure and internet gateway operated by government and they do not have a short-term plan for IPv6 at this moment also using any type of tunnel in Iran is illegal and if we use this it is push me to jail for at least 6 months.
Sorry, I read that text only after I answered one of your earlier e-mails. This is nothing APWG can help with, though, as much as we want to. Sorry. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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 (8)
-
Andrea Cima -
Fredy Kuenzler -
Gert Doering -
Hamed Shafaghi -
Hank Nussbacher -
Henrik Lund Kramshøj -
Sander Steffann -
Tore Anderson