
Dear Address Council, As chair of the lir-wg, http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/index.html the RIPE open forum where policy is made I am writing you this open letter. The purpose of this note is to update you all on the input gathered from our region. It is an open letter to work as a startingpoint for a broader discussion on the same topics in all of the addressing community. This would provide valuable input to the planned workshop to be held between the AC, the RIRs and ICANN in Brisbane later this year. (This initiative was first suggested in Budapest and later discussed at the AC phone conferences, please refer to the minutes for more information: http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/) At RIPE 37 I called for a special workshop in order to bring those especially interested in ASO matters together with the AC representatives from our region for closer discussion. The announcement of the issues I brought to the meeting can be found at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/20000701-20001001/msg00150.htm l Some 20-30 people showed up including Address Council members - Sabine Jaume, Wilfried Woeber, and myself. The following rather broad topics lies on the Address Councils table, and will be discussed by the AC, ICANN and the RIRs at a physical AC meeting in Brisbane just after the APNIC meeting in October. This effort is thus an attempt to seek advice from the community before these discussions to satisfy the basic requirements for openness and transparency. 1) What is global policy ? There are several dimensions to this discussion: - replace RFC 2050 with a ICANN Address policy document - what is the distinction between regional and global policy - do we understand and appreciate the differences between the regional policies ? - differences between v4 and v6 with respect to the last item - what's the role/work mode of the AC ? to make the definite address policy, or to work on issues as they show up - were is the border between a service level contract and policy issues. - are there other operating guidelines for the ICANN - IANA than the global addressing policy ? 2) Revising the MOU In the widest sense: are there things in the present MOU that needs more work and needs to be changed ? 3) Addressing the essence of the ad Hoc committee, i.e. discussing how to best address new addressing needs emerging for 4) How to promote ipv6 ? 5) Emerging RIRs How to enable and support the emerging RIRs to establish regional policy processes ? The official minutes from this meeting will be posted shortly, but a brief summary is as follows: * The distinction between regional and global address policy needs to be set * The AC needs to understand and appreciate the differences between each of the regional policies * There is interest in harmonizing the core procedures and requirements of the various Regional Registries with regard to LIRs applying for and obtaining IP address space. * The Address Council should proactive set the agenda for global policy development. * IPv4 address exhaustion - the AC should work with the RIRs and the ICANN IANA to produce comparable statistics on address space consumption. Care should be taken to first produce solid data, then diagnose, and finally seek the proper cure. * The AC should not see it as its role to promote IPv4 over IPv6 or vice versa. * The AC should look further into addressing the concerns that initiated the ad Hoc committee * It was also expressed satisfaction with the ASO annual meeting in Budapest and further interest inntrest in more opportunities to meet and discuss global addressing policy with the address council. It was suggested to me publicly and privately that the AC sould seek to hold an open meeting in conjunction with the ICANN annual meeting later this year. The agenda of such a meeting should consist of not only reporting from the work done by the AC and the ASO but also provide open discussions on addressing issues including the ad Hoc group issues, global policy development and several legacy addressing issues. A well prepared meeting with invited speakers as well as a discusion panel is likely to bring more insight into the issues in front of us. Such a meeting would in my opinion serve as an important step in the ongoing process of seeking global consensus. We have started the discussion regionally at RIPE 37, the ARIN policy meeting and the upcoming APNIC policy meeting. Thereafter the AC, RIRs and ICANN will work further on some issues, present and discuss them at the ICANN annual meeting before seeking final consensus at all the regions mailinglists and upcoming policy meetings. I would by this ask the chair of the address council to bring these suggestions to the address councils next phone conference. Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen RIPE lir-wg Chair, the open forum where policy is made.

1) What is global policy ?
There are several dimensions to this discussion: - replace RFC 2050 with a ICANN Address policy document - what is the distinction between regional and global policy - do we understand and appreciate the differences between the regional policies ? - differences between v4 and v6 with respect to the last item - what's the role/work mode of the AC ? to make the definite address
Hans Petter wrote (seeking input): policy,
or to work on issues as they show up - were is the border between a service level contract and policy issues. - are there other operating guidelines for the ICANN - IANA than the global addressing policy ?
Here are some observations: - a growing number of issues in addressing policy are global in scope, not regional. The RIRs recognize this and have met and coordinated policy in a variety areas. I think the number of issues that are global in scope are growing and -- after seeing the debates over IPv6 and HTTP 1.1 name based hosting at a couple of RIR meetings -- I think global consistency is going to become crucial. The RIRs can be one place for people to have input on global addressing issues, but it shouldn't be the only one. - I think that RFC 2050 should be updated or replaced with a document that clearly identifies allocation policies and the exceptional cases (net-24 and the like) that face both established and emerging registries. That ought to be a work item for a "working group" in the ASO. I'd be willing to be a contributor to that effort. - I like to see someone propose a definition of what issues are really regional issues. After all the pool of IPv4/IPv6 addresses is truly a global set of addresses. It seems to me that they should be managed with a consistent set of rules regardless of whether your are in Aruba or Zambia. So, what are the regional issues? I understand that there are administrative issues that distinguish each of the registries -- that makes sense. But why would there be differences in IP address policy? - On global policy, I'd like to see the AC's workflow diagram published as a draft document on http://www.aso.icann.org with an opportunity to comment. Specifically, I'd like to see the mechanisms that are there that support meaningful public and industry participation in addressing policy development. Where in the workflow diagram is the opportunity for interested companies and engineers to raise addressing issues outside the context of the RIRs? It's just my opinion, but that's what you asked for.... mark Mark McFadden Chief Technology Officer Commercial Internet eXchange www.cix.org -- mcfadden@cix.org v: (+1) 608-240-1560 f: (+1) 608-240-1562

Hans Petter said:
3) Addressing the essence of the ad Hoc committee, i.e. discussing how to best address new addressing needs emerging for
I'll respond on the Ad Hoc Committee in a moment. At the ARIN meeting this week Brian Carpenter presented a slightly revised version of the presentation that Bob Hinden made at RIPE in September. The discussion afterward was lively but what was clear was that the IAB/IESG was doing a good job of education during their road shows, but they weren't completely convincing their audience. I'd observe that: - many people have done some estimates of when IPv4 exhaustion takes place, with many different results (depending on the algorithm used); nobody seems to agree and it seems to affect the debate on IPv6 - many people have ideas about what pressures are emerging on addressing -- with people already asking for conservation of IPv6 space because of fears about what might happen in the future; - not everyone agrees that you can successfully predict the future -- and especially the future impact of technologies that are yet to be deployed or even imagined; and, - some believe that IPv6 allocation should reflect a "worst case" analysis of possible futures. Whether the Ad Hoc committee continues past Los Angeles or not, I think the AC should be prepared to deal with these issues. The IESG/IAB road show has been helpful in bringing part of the discussion to some constituencies, but the discussion should be larger than simply the size of allocations in IPv6 to a specific class of users. The AC should take this effort on - a "working group" if you will - that meaningfully involved the IETF, the RIRs, traditional telephone companies, mobile operators, ISPs and anyone else in the industry that has a stake in the pressures that are coming on addressing. This is a natural group to sort through the various estimates on IPv4 exhaustion (I sat at dinner and heard three different representatives of three different companies give three different estimates -- and swear that they were correct) and then act on the Ad Hoc Committee's report of "drivers" of pressure on address policy. That should be the group that takes the lead on the IPv6 discussion -- gathering input and making a recommendation to the AC/ASO and RIRs. At its Brisbane meeting I'd like to see the Address Council charter such a working group and have it work in coordination with the IETF, the RIRs, traditional telephone companies, mobile operators, and ISPs. mark Mark McFadden Chief Technology Officer Commercial Internet eXchange www.cix.org -- mcfadden@cix.org v: (+1) 608-240-1560 f: (+1) 608-240-1562
participants (2)
-
Hans Petter Holen
-
Mark McFadden