Address Policy Working Group Minutes from RIPE 48

• content to the Chair of the working group.
  
• format to webmaster@ripe.net.

Address Policy Working Group Summary (RIPE 48)
------------------------------------------
Date:		Wednesday 5 May 2004
Time:		09.00 - 12.30
Location:	Grand Ballroom
------------------------------------------

Agenda

A: Administrative matters
B: RIPE NCC (stats) Update
C: ICANN ASO AC Update
D: ICANN ASO AC - A view from outside
E: Discussion resulting from ICANN ASO presentations
F: Looking at the 80% Policy for Additional IPv4 Allocations
G: Policy Development Process
H: Issues seen in IPv6 Allocation Requests
I: IPv6 Policy Discussion
J. Expanded Address Allocation for Private Internets
Y: Open Microphone
Z: AOB

------------------------------------------

A: Administrative matters

Chair: Hans-Petter Holen
Co-Chair: Gert Doering, Andrea Borgato
Scribe: Laura Cobley, Scott Donald

Minutes from RIPE 47 approved:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r47-minutes.html

Update on open actions:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/action-list.html

B: RIPE NCC (stats) Update - Filiz Yilmaz (RIPE NCC)

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-ap-rs-update.pdf
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-ap-rir-stats.pdf

	Leslie Nobile (ARIN) informed us that the HD Ratio idea was
	rejected in the ARIN region and clarified that the Address
	Policy for multihomed networks does not only apply ISPs, but
	also includes End Users

	The terminology [slide 3] was taken directly from the IANA
	website and can be updated in co-ordination with IANA:

	Private Use = 10/8 to be reserved for private use.
	Public Data = 14/8 for public networks - x25s
	Central Registry = pre-RIR address space (old "Class A" & ERX
	space)

	There was a call for the RIPE NCC to take a more active role
	here, as stated by the NRO. Axel Pawlik (RIPE NCC) commented
	that the RIPE NCC wants to work closely with IANA concerning
	these figures and will make recommendations based on the
	feedback from the community.

C: ICANN ASO AC Update - Hans Petter Holen
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-ap-ac.pdf

	The ASO representatives participate in global policy
	development. If anyone has any issues they would like us to
	bring up, please let us know.

D: ICANN ASO AC - A view from outside - Hans Petter Holen

	 We were unable to find a volunteer for this - perhaps we can
	 add it to the agenda for the next meeting.

E: Discussion resulting from ICANN ASO presentations
   no comments

F: Looking at the 80% Policy for Additional IPv4 Allocations - Paul Wilson (APNIC)
(AKA HD Ratio for IPv4)
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-ap-hd-ratio.pdf

	Paul Wilson (APNIC) stressed that the current 80% rule is not
	based on any scientific facts or principles any more than the
	HD ratio method. The idea has already been presented to the
	APNIC community to raise awareness and received a fairly
	positive reaction.

	There were some concerns that administrative staff would not
	be able to understand the system and it would make things much
	more difficult administratively as well as effectively
	'wasting' a lot more address space.

	Leo Vegoda (RIPE NCC) stated that as the RIPE NCC is always
	seeking to minimise any burden on its members, it would be
	prepared to write software alleviating this administrative
	burden. There would be no need to worry about the
	calculations.

	John Curran (ARIN) mentioned that in the ARIN region, a lot of
	people didn't understand the value of the system and didn't
	see the problem that was trying to be solved.

	It was generally agreed that the issue of worldwide shopping
	for address space (global ISPs with international networks) is
	a concern that needs to be carefully considered before
	adopting different procedures in each region. Maybe the NRO
	should be asked to step in.

Action (WG Chair) Take discussion to the mailing list

H: Issues seen in IPv6 Allocation requests - Leo Vegoda (RIPE NCC)
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-ap-ipv6-policy.pdf

	There were some concerns that we were concentrating on
	clarifying the text instead of working together with the other
	Regions on this. It was reiterated that the RIPE NCC is
	working together with the other RIRs but wanted to highlight
	the issues that will need further discussion within the
	working group.

	There was clarification on the paragraphs relating to privacy
	laws (the document had to apply on a global level) and
	registration (any organisation holding more than one /48,
	contiguous or not, needs to register this). This type of
	information needs to be clarified in the policy if only a
	handful of people know.

I: IPv6 Policy Discussion - Gert Doering (SpaceNet AG)

	Louis Lee (Equinix, Inc.) commented that as a US operator, if
	asked to supply a plan, this is considered to be a marketing
	forecast. If this is not the case, the wording in the policy
	needs to clearly state what is required.

	There were calls for clarification of the initial allocation
	criteria and possibly to review the 200 /48 requirement.

	Some organisations (such as start-up companies) think that
	unless they have solid plans to have 200 users they don't
	qualify. They don't realise that they are only required to
	think that they will have 200 users in the foreseeable future.

	There was also some concern over site-locals and whether they
	can be used for private address space, however this is being
	looked at by the IETF who are working on a form of unique site
	locals that would be unique, but not routable. This work has
	been neither passed nor rejected so far.

	Leslie Nobile (ARIN) mentioned that in the ARIN region the
	requirements in section 5.1.1.d have been changed to "Having
	200 /48 assignments in 5 years OR be a "known" ISP in the ARIN
	region"

	There was some confusion over the minumum allocation size
	(/32), but it was clarified that as long as an LIR can show
	that they need an initial allocation, the policy provides for
	this.

	It was also clarified that the decision to restricting the
	assignment sizes to /128, /64 and /48 (RFC3177) was taken to
	alleviate possible renumbering issues (i.e. /52 to /48) and
	due to the fact that there are more than 1000 /48s for every
	person on the planet.

	Jordi Palet (Consulintel) expressed concern that there are
	ISPs that don't understand the assignment recommendations and
	refuse to assign more than a /64 to their customers.

	It was confirmed that this is a misconception on the ISPs part
	and it was also clarified that you don't have to be an LIR to
	obtain an experimental allocation, however the request does
	need to be sent by an LIR.

	There was some uncertainty over what size assignment LIRs
	should give to End-customers for End-site multihoming. This
	might be more relevant for the Routing WG but it seems to be
	working ok with most /40 and /48s being advertised. The whole
	issue is fairly open at the moment.

	Another suggestion was that LIRs should be prevented from
	holding address space if they don't use it within a certain
	time period. It already seems [from the slides] that about 30%
	of the allocated address space is not advertised. On the other
	side, this might put people off when the use of IPv6 should be
	encouraged. The original concern with the policy had been to
	avoid adding to the size of the routing table.

	Wilfried Woeber (Vienna University) confirmed that he wasn't
	too worried about abolishing the initial allocation
	requirements completely. Those people that want to announce
	them can do so, and those that don't, don't.

	There seem to be mixed feelings about whether this is too
	radical.

	Leo Vegoda (RIPE NCC) brought up some concerns from the EIX
	WG, whereby simply allocating a /32 to all LIRs would be
	preferable so that IXPs that are LIRs can provide for their
	services (not for their network mesh).

	The only question remaining is how to coordinate with the
	other regions.  Perhaps the RIPE NCC will do this?

Action (WG Chair) - Circulate input on the mailing list.
Action (RIPE NCC) - Propose re-write following mailing list discussion.

J: Expanded (IPv4) Address Allocation for Private Internets - Gert Doering (SpaceNet AG)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt

	It was suggested to use class E space for this, but there were
	other concerns that this address space would only be routed by
	BSD.

G: Policy Development Process - Hans Petter Holen (Tiscali)
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-ap-policy-dev.pdf
	no comments

Y: Open Microphone
	no comments

Z: AOB
	no 'other business', so the meeting was closed.

------------------------------------------