RIPE 50

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

Address Policy Working Group Minutes from RIPE 50
RIPE Meeting 50 in Stockholm
Thursday 5th May 2005 - 14:00 - 15:30
Scribe: Laura Cobley

A. Administrative Matters
- Welcome
- Laura Cobley (RIPE NCC) to scribe
- Participants list distributed
- Agenda finalised ('C' moved to tomorrow's plenary and 'E' moved to end together with 'J')
- Minutes from RIPE 49 approved:
- Open Actions to be dropped from agenda and replaced with discussion of open policy issues.

B. Policy overview
- Regional policy overview
-- presentation of the status of the current regional proposals under
the "beta test of the PDP"
-- status of the PDP and transition to the PDP
--- PDP last call posted to ripe-list with closing date May 10th. (discussion tomorrow in plenary)

D. Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy Discussion
phase until: May 6th
Support for the proposal was repeated and no objections were raised. When the discussion period ends tomorrow, the chairs will move the proposal into last call.

F. Policy proposal: #gamma: IPv6 remove 200 customer requirement
Discussion phase until May: 9th

Andy Furnell summarised the discussion so far and highlighted the arguments for and against the proposal

Several opinions were voiced in support of dropping the 200 customer requirement and none opposed it. Leo Vegoda (RIPE NCC) presented some research showing that 2% of IPv6 requestors had not qualified in
accordance with the current policy. It was mentionned that this is a very small number and that there is an uncountable number of people
who don't send in a request because they think they won't qualify.

The concern raised in previous meetings and on the mailing list that
LIRs are just saying what people [RIPE NCC] want to hear in order to
get an allocation was also brought up again along with the comment
that the policy text needs to be clearer. Amongst other things, the
definition of an 'end-site' is something that could be improved, but
is not within the scope of this proposal. Another important point that
has been raised on previous occasions was that if there is a technical
need for the address space, it should be available.

Some background to the original global policy was outlined, and it was
explained that compromises that were made at that time are now being
addressed in each region. For example, in the ARIN region, members
will automatically qualify for an allocation. It was stressed that we
need to consider the long-term effects of the policy and that it
should remain flexible for future developments. Additionally, it was
pointed out that some decisions regarding the global consistency had
been made at a time when the RIR system was under threat and ICANN had
been under a lot of scrutiny.

As the comment period for this proposal has ended, the chairs will
make a decision as to whether there is consensus to move the proposal
to last call or to reject it.

G. IPv6 Global Policy status - Ray Plzak, ARIN

It was generally agreed that global policies should go through each
RIR's policy development process. The chairs will make a formal
proposal for this.

=> Action on chairs to make formal proposal

H. Policy Proposal: #epsilon: Removal of Africa Special Policy
Discussion phase until May: 1st

There were no objections to removing references to AfriNIC from the
policy and the chairs expect to declare a consensus at the end of the
discussion period.

I. Policy Proposal: #zeta: Adding Regional Boundaries to Policy Documents Discussion phase until May: 1st

Serious concerns were raised regarding the proposal's scope. The chair clarified the intention as to specify that RIPE policy cannot be used in another region. The clarification will be published on the mailing list and then the proposal moved into last call.

J. Discussion: (IPv6) HD ratio consequences Geoff Huston:

E. Policy proposal: #beta: IPv4-HD-Ratio Discussion phase until: April 4th

Geoff Huston's presentation on some IPv6 policy issues during the plenary on Wednesday afternoon sparked discussion on the HD-Ratio in general, both for IPv4 and IPv6.

For IPv6, it was suggested that changing the current HD-Ratio from 0.8 to 0.94 could make a huge difference in the rate of address space consumption and also that the figure can be reviewed after a while. Geoff Huston thinks that the same plan is usually implemented for IPv6 as the IPv4 plan, including the number of hierarchical levels, which is around 2-5.

Mattias Lignell (TeliaSonera) points out that there is not always a direct overlay from IPv4 to IPv6 for reasons other than routing (such as filtering loopback addresses/services). This subject can be discussed in more detail on the mailing list.

Ruediger Volk (Deutsche Telekom) added that they [DT] would probably not implement a completely new IPv6 network at first, but that it is something that is a possibility for the future. Adding a few additional levels of hierarchy is also a reasonable supposition.

APNIC is conducting a survey into the levels of hierarchy actually  implemented by ISPs and the results will be announced at APNIC 20 in September.

Thomas Narten (IBM) has heard feedback that with the HD-Ratio at 0.8, allocations are currently being made that are larger than will ever be needed and a representative of Cable & Wireless added that an HD-Ratio of 0.94 would be sufficient for their needs as a very large network operator.

For IPv4, the proposed figure is 0.96.

France Telecom said that large registries do have levels of hierarchy in IPv4 and implementing an HD-Ratio would allow them the flexibility to achieve this.

Geoff Huston reminded everyone that the HD-Ratio is meant to enable 80% usage at each hierarchical level, rather than only at the top level.

There is also a related agenda item in the IPv6 WG on Friday.

"Revisiting the /48 recommendation" (Thomas Narten) Discussion, read
rfc3177 as preparation:
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3177.txt;

After the comment period for the IPv4-HD-Ratio proposal (#beta) ends,
the chairs will decide whether to move it into last call.

K. Any other Business
None

Session ended 15:30