2024-02 New Version Policy Proposal (IPv6 Initial Allocations /28)
Dear colleagues, RIPE policy proposal 2024-02, "IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 " is now available for discussion again. This proposal aims to change the initial IPv6 allocation size from /29 to /28. Following the last round of discussion, this proposal has been updated and it is now at version 2.0. The main differences from version 1.0 are that it allows the provision without additional documentation of initial allocations from /32 up to /28, instead of /32 or /28, and only a single existing allocation extension per member. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2024-02/ As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposers. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposers, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. The PDP document can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 28 March 2025. Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC
Dear Address Policy WG, If you support this proposal, please say so. A simple +1 or 👍 is all that's needed. If you oppose this proposal, please say so and indicate why. A simple explanation is fine. Many thanks, Leo Vegoda for the Address Policy WG co-chairs On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 at 03:15, Angela Dall'Ara <adallara@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
RIPE policy proposal 2024-02, "IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 " is now available for discussion again.
This proposal aims to change the initial IPv6 allocation size from /29 to /28.
Following the last round of discussion, this proposal has been updated and it is now at version 2.0. The main differences from version 1.0 are that it allows the provision without additional documentation of initial allocations from /32 up to /28, instead of /32 or /28, and only a single existing allocation extension per member.
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2024-02/
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposers. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposers, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal.
The PDP document can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 28 March 2025.
Kind regards,
Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
+1 from me Cheers, Jori Vanneste On March 10, 2025 3:33:20 PM GMT+01:00, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Dear Address Policy WG,
If you support this proposal, please say so. A simple +1 or 👍 is all that's needed.
If you oppose this proposal, please say so and indicate why. A simple explanation is fine.
Many thanks,
Leo Vegoda for the Address Policy WG co-chairs
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 at 03:15, Angela Dall'Ara <adallara@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
RIPE policy proposal 2024-02, "IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 " is now available for discussion again.
This proposal aims to change the initial IPv6 allocation size from /29 to /28.
Following the last round of discussion, this proposal has been updated and it is now at version 2.0. The main differences from version 1.0 are that it allows the provision without additional documentation of initial allocations from /32 up to /28, instead of /32 or /28, and only a single existing allocation extension per member.
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2024-02/
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposers. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposers, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal.
The PDP document can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 28 March 2025.
Kind regards,
Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
The proposed policy text for 5.7 is unclear. I had to re-read it a couple of times to figure out what it meant. Can I suggest the following rewording to make it clearer?
5.7. Existing IPv6 address space holders
An organization that holds one or more IPv6 allocations originally issued by the RIPE NCC as a single prefix may request an extension of one of these allocations up to a /28 without the need for additional documentation. Only one such extension may be granted per organisation, regardless of the number of LIR accounts held by the organisation.
The RIPE NCC should allocate the new address space contiguously with the LIRs' existing allocations and avoid allocating non-contiguous space under this policy section.
Nick Leo Vegoda wrote on 10/03/2025 14:33:
Dear Address Policy WG,
If you support this proposal, please say so. A simple +1 or 👍is all that's needed.
If you oppose this proposal, please say so and indicate why. A simple explanation is fine.
Many thanks,
Leo Vegoda for the Address Policy WG co-chairs
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 at 03:15, Angela Dall'Ara <adallara@ripe.net <mailto:adallara@ripe.net>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
RIPE policy proposal 2024-02, "IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 " is now available for discussion again.
This proposal aims to change the initial IPv6 allocation size from /29 to /28.
Following the last round of discussion, this proposal has been updated and it is now at version 2.0. The main differences from version 1.0 are that it allows the provision without additional documentation of initial allocations from /32 up to /28, instead of /32 or /28, and only a single existing allocation extension per member.
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2024-02/
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposers. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposers, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal.
The PDP document can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 28 March 2025.
Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi Nick, One of the inputs from the previous version was that some folks that have even 100 LIRs to trade with IPv6 addresses can keep “abusing" the system by asking for an upgrade of each /29 to /28, then they can even split the prefixes, etc. So the idea here is that instead of allowing every LIR to upgrade to /28, we only allow 1 upgrade per organization, not per LIR. The idea behind this is that most of the organizations that didn’t have enough with a /29, will fall in the category that they created one additional LIR. If they needed many more /29’s probably they are bigger enough to have justified a /26 or /24 (just examples). Now, to avoid the abuse possibility of breaking down a /29 into multiple /32s, we only allow the upgrade of the prefix “originally issued”. So we will be able to upgrade an original /29, but not each of the broken down (and transferred) /32s. We are trying to benefit the majority of those organizations that really need the addresses for their network (not for trading), and at the same time mitigate as much as possible abuse cases. The risk is that a presumable very very very few organizations that may need more than /28 need to keep doing a justification for a bigger prefix. If the community agree with those goals and disagree with the way we expresed it, we could find a better way to rephrase this, even if it means longer text, bullet points with all the conditions or whatever. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
El 11 mar 2025, a las 11:52, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> escribió:
The proposed policy text for 5.7 is unclear. I had to re-read it a couple of times to figure out what it meant. Can I suggest the following rewording to make it clearer?
5.7. Existing IPv6 address space holders
An organization that holds one or more IPv6 allocations originally issued by the RIPE NCC as a single prefix may request an extension of one of these allocations up to a /28 without the need for additional documentation. Only one such extension may be granted per organisation, regardless of the number of LIR accounts held by the organisation.
The RIPE NCC should allocate the new address space contiguously with the LIRs' existing allocations and avoid allocating non-contiguous space under this policy section.
Nick
Leo Vegoda wrote on 10/03/2025 14:33:
Dear Address Policy WG,
If you support this proposal, please say so. A simple +1 or 👍 is all that's needed.
If you oppose this proposal, please say so and indicate why. A simple explanation is fine.
Many thanks,
Leo Vegoda for the Address Policy WG co-chairs
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 at 03:15, Angela Dall'Ara <adallara@ripe.net <mailto:adallara@ripe.net>> wrote:
Dear colleagues, >>> >>>
RIPE policy proposal 2024-02, "IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 " is now available for discussion again. >>> >>>
This proposal aims to change the initial IPv6 allocation size from /29 to /28.
>>> Following the last round of discussion, this proposal has been updated and it is now at version 2.0. >>> The main differences from version 1.0 are that it allows the provision without additional documentation of initial allocations from /32 up to /28, instead of /32 or /28, and only a single existing allocation extension per member.
You can find the full proposal at: >>> https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2024-02/
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposers. >>> >>> At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposers, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. >>> >>>
The PDP document can be found at: >>> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781
>>> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >>> address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 28 March 2025. >>> >>> >>>
Kind regards, >>> >>> Angela Dall'Ara >>> Policy Officer >>> RIPE NCC ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
jordi.palet--- via address-policy-wg wrote on 11/03/2025 11:17:
So the idea here is that instead of allowing every LIR to upgrade to /28, we only allow 1 upgrade per organization, not per LIR.
yep, understood. The suggestion I provided makes the policy clearer and easier to understand, that's all. There's no change in the semantics. Nick
Yep, tks a lot, I just wanted to make sure that we are on the same page. Saludos, Jordi @jordipalet
El 11 mar 2025, a las 14:13, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> escribió:
jordi.palet--- via address-policy-wg wrote on 11/03/2025 11:17:
So the idea here is that instead of allowing every LIR to upgrade to /28, we only allow 1 upgrade per organization, not per LIR.
yep, understood.
The suggestion I provided makes the policy clearer and easier to understand, that's all. There's no change in the semantics.
Nick
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi, Jordi wrote:
So the idea here is that instead of allowing every LIR to upgrade to /28, we only allow 1 upgrade per organization, not per LIR.
‘Organisation’ is not defined in RIPE-738 or this proposed change. Perhaps we need to add such a definition after definition 2.4 in RIPE-738 to explicitly say that that we mean a legal entity that has one or more Local Internet Registries. I am assuming that the working group does not mean that ‘organisation’ should extend beyond one single legal entity, and to ask the NCC to explore common beneficial ownership, group structure, etc., before extending an existing v6 allocation. Best wishes, Andy Davidson ( AJBD-RIPE // uk.ask4internet )
Andy Davidson wrote on 18/03/2025 09:22:
per organization, not per LIR.
‘Organisation’ is not defined in RIPE-738 or this proposed change.
Perhaps we need to add such a definition after definition 2.4 in RIPE-738 to explicitly say that that we mean a legal entity that has one or more Local Internet Registries. I am assuming that the working group does not mean that ‘organisation’ should extend beyond one single legal entity, and to ask the NCC to explore common beneficial ownership, group structure, etc., before extending an existing v6 allocation.
the term used in the RIPE NCC Billing Procedure is "member", which is distinct from "LIR" or "LIR Account". https://www.ripe.net/membership/payment/ripe-ncc-billing-procedure-2025/ Expanding this to include connected entities may be difficult. Nick
Dear Address Policy WG, I was told off list that the different font sizes in the last mail below might be interpreted as an indication of a push towards a specific reaction. This is not the case. In fact, I did not know that some mail clients would show change font in the middle of the message. So, every day is a school day. And my thanks to those who alerted me to the font change. Kind regards, Leo
On Mar 10, 2025, at 07:33, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Dear Address Policy WG,
If you support this proposal, please say so. A simple +1 or 👍 is all that's needed.
If you oppose this proposal, please say so and indicate why. A simple explanation is fine.
Many thanks,
Leo Vegoda for the Address Policy WG co-chairs
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 at 03:15, Angela Dall'Ara <adallara@ripe.net> wrote: Dear colleagues, > >
RIPE policy proposal 2024-02, "IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 " is now available for discussion again. > >
This proposal aims to change the initial IPv6 allocation size from /29 to /28.
> Following the last round of discussion, this proposal has been updated and it is now at version 2.0. > The main differences from version 1.0 are that it allows the provision without additional documentation of initial allocations from /32 up to /28, instead of /32 or /28, and only a single existing allocation extension per member.
You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2024-02/
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposers. > > At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposers, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. > >
The PDP document can be found at: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 28 March 2025. > > >
Kind regards, > > Angela Dall'Ara > Policy Officer > RIPE NCC
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi, On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 12:14:52PM +0100, Angela Dall'Ara wrote:
RIPE policy proposal 2024-02, "IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 " is now available for discussion again.??????
This proposal aims to change the initial IPv6 allocation size from /29 to /28.
I still see no compelling need for this change, as I do not think the obsession with nibbles is justified - network admins will have to deal with odd bit sizes anyway, so pretending we can hide this by making the default allocation a /28 is, well, not convincing me. That said, I *do* support the proposal, just to spite ARIN with their silly "we restrict ISPs to a /36 unless they pay more for a /32" policy. IPv6 policy is about enabling IPv6 deployment, and not about introducing artificial shortage - and the numbers are pretty clear that giving a /28 to every RIPE NCC member ("a few ten thousands") is not putting undue pressure on the v6 address space at large. That said, it's reasonable to have safeguards to prevent stockpiling based on perceived benefits of having multiple prefixes, all extended to /28s. It's been mentioned that we seem to be at this point again and again (/35 to /32, /32 to /29, now /29 to /28), always argueing "another bit won't harm" and that being a slippery slope - so, yes, whenever we come here again and discuss "shouldn't we increase this to /27? or maybe /24?" we need to stare hard at the numbers, and also at the reasoning why ISPs would need larger blocks. OTOH, we've been at this for some 25 years now, so we do have a better understanding on block sizes, number of LIRs, global dynamics, etc. (We as a LIR won't benefit from this proposal, though... our /35 came from a /29 reservation, so we can only ever grow this to a /28 if we manage to convince the other LIR in that /28 to transfer their half to us, which they are not very likely to do :-) - we don't need the space anyway, we're happy with the /32 we now have, and have never needed to extend it to a /29) Gert Doering -- IPv6 old fart -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
participants (7)
-
Andy Davidson -
Angela Dall'Ara -
Gert Doering -
jordi.palet＠consulintel.es -
Jori Vanneste -
Leo Vegoda -
Nick Hilliard