You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > RIPE Forum
RIPE Forum v1.4.2

Address Policy Working Group

Threaded
Collapse

[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling

User Image

Marco Schmidt

2021-10-29 12:03:15 CET

RIPE NCC staff member

Dear colleagues,

During RIPE 82, we provided you with an update on our observation of 
IPv6 stockpiling [1]. Based on the feedback we received and in 
preparation for the coming RIPE meeting, we would like to give you 
another update on that issue.

According to the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy, an LIR 
can receive up to a /29 IPv6 allocation without needing to supply any 
additional information. The RIPE community considered this size 
sufficient for most organisations for long-term IPv6 deployment. 
Additionally, LIRs may qualify allocations greater than /29 by 
submitting documentation that reasonably justifies this request [2].

However, over the past few years we have noticed that some organisations 
are collecting multiple IPv6 allocations in ways that are permitted by 
current RIPE policies but might conflict with the above-mentioned intent 
of the IPv6 policy. For example, it is possible for a single RIPE NCC 
member to receive a /29 allocation for each of the multiple LIR accounts 
that it holds. This is the result of a policy change in 2018 [3]. LIRs 
can also receive multiple IPv6 allocations via policy transfers without 
needing any further justification. However, when the IPv6 transfer 
policy was discussed in 2014, it was assumed that there wouldn't be an 
active transfer market [4].

We have gathered data showing the significant development of the 
collection of IPv6:
- Almost 700 IPv6 allocations have been transferred in 2021 so far (and 
there have been more than 3,900 transfers since policy implementation in 
2015)
- About 60% all IPv6 allocations ever handed out by the RIPE NCC are now 
held as multiple allocations
- In the last three months, more than 75% of all new allocations were 
given to members that already hold at least one IPv6 allocation
- More than 1,500 members hold multiple IPv6 allocations, exceeding the 
size /29
- Almost 100 members hold more than 10 IPv6 allocations (the maximum is 
102 IPv6 allocations held by one member)

It is the RIPE NCC’s understanding that some of these situations are 
within the intent of previous policy changes, for example, to avoid 
renumbering of deployed IPv6 networks during holdership changes, or if a 
large company has multiple network departments that prefer to manage 
their own allocation.
However, the huge volume indicates that most are for other reasons. 
While members can collect multiple IPv6 allocations without evaluation 
by the RIPE NCC, we still were able to gather some feedback how members 
plan to use their allocations. Many members simply stockpile them for an 
undefined future use, others plan to use them for activities which 
temporarily require a vast amount of IPs, and some plan to offer IPv6 on 
a large scale to other ISPs in their country.

We believe that this situation could create several issues:
- IPv6 might be deployed in conflict with RIPE policies, underlying RFCs 
and other best practices, resulting in challenges to that IPv6 
deployment once the policy violation is discovered during an audit
- There could be a negative impact on the quality of the registry if 
large parts of allocations were given to third parties without clear 
registration requirements
- The policy requirement to justify larger IPv6 allocations would then 
be rendered useless

If you agree that this is a problem, we would like to initiate a 
discussion in this Working Group about possible solutions. We see at 
least two potential paths forward.

Firstly, if the Working Group believes that this trend is an indication 
of a widespread need for IPv6 address space larger than /29, then the 
requirement for justification could perhaps be adjusted for a larger 
allocation size. Members could then more easily get the address space 
they need, but as an aggregated block. Stockpiling would still be 
possible under this potential policy change, in fact on an even bigger 
scale.

Secondly, if the Working Group believes that this trend is in conflict 
with the original intent of the IPv6 policy, adjustments to the policy 
can be proposed that give the RIPE NCC a stronger mandate to enforce it. 
One challenge here would be defining what IPv6 usages are considered 
within or outside of the intent of the policy and how to ensure better 
oversight without too much impact on IPv6 deployment.

There might be other options that this working group can consider and 
discuss.
If required, the RIPE NCC can provide additional information for this 
discussion.

Kind regards,
Marco Schmidt
Registry Services Assistant Manager
RIPE NCC

[1] https://ripe82.ripe.net/presentations/7-RIPE82-Feeback-from-RS.pdf 
from slide 9
[2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-738#initial_allocation
[3] https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01
[4] https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-12


User Image

Gert Doering

2021-10-29 12:54:16 CET

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 12:03:15PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> There might be other options that this working group can consider and 
> discuss.

I would be very interested to hear from a few LIRs that have more than
10 allocations what their reasoning is.


I know at least one enterprise that has 3 LIR accounts for different
parts of their business ("internal DC networks", "cloud stuff", "office
networks") which are sufficiently disjoint that they effectively are
3 different companies, owned by the same mothership - so I do understand
why some setups need/want "a handful" of allocations.

I can also understand a setup where a multinational ISP is organized in
a way so that every country network is served by a distinct LIR, so each 
can handle their local addressing needs as they find appropriate - and 
I'd also say that this is a good use of resources (and if the company 
decides that they want to merge all these LIRs into one umbrella account
later, you'd end up with 10+ /29s).   UUnet used to do that "back in the
IPv4 days", and ended up with a big stack of red voting cards at AGM :-)

So, these use cases I fully understand, and find them well within the
goals of the IPv6 policy

  - make sure people have addresses to number their networks
  - make sure the RIPE NCC knows where these addresses are (registry)


That said, I lack imagination why LIRs would need much higher numbers
of /29, so it would be good to hear about the underlying reasoning -
speculation won't adjust the policies in a positive way.


*That* said, I'm not alarmed either, yet.  102 /29s is, in total, a
/22 of IPv6 space.  If this happens a few times per RIR, it won't make
a noticeable dent in the available IPv6 space - which is, of course, the
other aspect we need to take into account "will $this make us run out of
address space in the next 50 years?".

As of now, I'm more worried about deaggregation and routing table slots
than I am about total address space burn rate.

Gert Doering
        -- just a long time IPv6 policy geek
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
User Image

Jordi Palet Martinez

2021-10-29 13:02:26 CET

Hi Marco, all,

I think we need to better understand the reasons/background on those multiple allocations.

If the justification for a larger allocation is too "heavy" (I personally don't think so), we need to amend the language or the internal NCC procedure to facilitate larger allocations.

I can also understand that some "bad" actors are actually doing this for stockpiling, but I fail to see how they could take advantage of that even in the medium/long term. I don't think they will be able to make business out of those addressed in the next hundred years or even more ... because I can't see how exhaustion can happen earlier.

Definitively if they are trying to use this for other ISPs, it makes no sense, and it is bad for IPv6 deployment.

So again, I'm convinced that we need to better understand the reasons why this is happening before taking concrete actions, unless I'm missing something else.
 
Now, I've another question here. Once there are no more IPv4 addresses to give out ... there is any real business to allow "multiple LIRs" without a "stronger" justification? Because that will also resolve this problem ...

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 29/10/21 12:03, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Marco Schmidt" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de mschmidt _at_ ripe _dot_ net> escribió:

    Dear colleagues,

    During RIPE 82, we provided you with an update on our observation of 
    IPv6 stockpiling [1]. Based on the feedback we received and in 
    preparation for the coming RIPE meeting, we would like to give you 
    another update on that issue.

    According to the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy, an LIR 
    can receive up to a /29 IPv6 allocation without needing to supply any 
    additional information. The RIPE community considered this size 
    sufficient for most organisations for long-term IPv6 deployment. 
    Additionally, LIRs may qualify allocations greater than /29 by 
    submitting documentation that reasonably justifies this request [2].

    However, over the past few years we have noticed that some organisations 
    are collecting multiple IPv6 allocations in ways that are permitted by 
    current RIPE policies but might conflict with the above-mentioned intent 
    of the IPv6 policy. For example, it is possible for a single RIPE NCC 
    member to receive a /29 allocation for each of the multiple LIR accounts 
    that it holds. This is the result of a policy change in 2018 [3]. LIRs 
    can also receive multiple IPv6 allocations via policy transfers without 
    needing any further justification. However, when the IPv6 transfer 
    policy was discussed in 2014, it was assumed that there wouldn't be an 
    active transfer market [4].

    We have gathered data showing the significant development of the 
    collection of IPv6:
    - Almost 700 IPv6 allocations have been transferred in 2021 so far (and 
    there have been more than 3,900 transfers since policy implementation in 
    2015)
    - About 60% all IPv6 allocations ever handed out by the RIPE NCC are now 
    held as multiple allocations
    - In the last three months, more than 75% of all new allocations were 
    given to members that already hold at least one IPv6 allocation
    - More than 1,500 members hold multiple IPv6 allocations, exceeding the 
    size /29
    - Almost 100 members hold more than 10 IPv6 allocations (the maximum is 
    102 IPv6 allocations held by one member)

    It is the RIPE NCC’s understanding that some of these situations are 
    within the intent of previous policy changes, for example, to avoid 
    renumbering of deployed IPv6 networks during holdership changes, or if a 
    large company has multiple network departments that prefer to manage 
    their own allocation.
    However, the huge volume indicates that most are for other reasons. 
    While members can collect multiple IPv6 allocations without evaluation 
    by the RIPE NCC, we still were able to gather some feedback how members 
    plan to use their allocations. Many members simply stockpile them for an 
    undefined future use, others plan to use them for activities which 
    temporarily require a vast amount of IPs, and some plan to offer IPv6 on 
    a large scale to other ISPs in their country.

    We believe that this situation could create several issues:
    - IPv6 might be deployed in conflict with RIPE policies, underlying RFCs 
    and other best practices, resulting in challenges to that IPv6 
    deployment once the policy violation is discovered during an audit
    - There could be a negative impact on the quality of the registry if 
    large parts of allocations were given to third parties without clear 
    registration requirements
    - The policy requirement to justify larger IPv6 allocations would then 
    be rendered useless

    If you agree that this is a problem, we would like to initiate a 
    discussion in this Working Group about possible solutions. We see at 
    least two potential paths forward.

    Firstly, if the Working Group believes that this trend is an indication 
    of a widespread need for IPv6 address space larger than /29, then the 
    requirement for justification could perhaps be adjusted for a larger 
    allocation size. Members could then more easily get the address space 
    they need, but as an aggregated block. Stockpiling would still be 
    possible under this potential policy change, in fact on an even bigger 
    scale.

    Secondly, if the Working Group believes that this trend is in conflict 
    with the original intent of the IPv6 policy, adjustments to the policy 
    can be proposed that give the RIPE NCC a stronger mandate to enforce it. 
    One challenge here would be defining what IPv6 usages are considered 
    within or outside of the intent of the policy and how to ensure better 
    oversight without too much impact on IPv6 deployment.

    There might be other options that this working group can consider and 
    discuss.
    If required, the RIPE NCC can provide additional information for this 
    discussion.

    Kind regards,
    Marco Schmidt
    Registry Services Assistant Manager
    RIPE NCC

    [1] https://ripe82.ripe.net/presentations/7-RIPE82-Feeback-from-RS.pdf 
    from slide 9
    [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-738#initial_allocation
    [3] https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01
    [4] https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-12





**********************************************
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.




User Image

Raymond Jetten

2021-10-29 14:50:42 CET

Hi Marco, All,

One reason for a LIR to have multiple /29 is when a lir (ISP in this case) buys smaller operators and consolidates them.
Since all of these blocks had some use before consolidation and its tedious to renumber....

I don’t see this as stockpiling, they will be even more in use in the future anyway, and we need to have enough use before being able to obtain more space...

Rgds,

Ray



For Internal Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net> On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
Sent: perjantai 29. lokakuuta 2021 14.02
To: address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling

Hi Marco, all,

I think we need to better understand the reasons/background on those multiple allocations.

If the justification for a larger allocation is too "heavy" (I personally don't think so), we need to amend the language or the internal NCC procedure to facilitate larger allocations.

I can also understand that some "bad" actors are actually doing this for stockpiling, but I fail to see how they could take advantage of that even in the medium/long term. I don't think they will be able to make business out of those addressed in the next hundred years or even more ... because I can't see how exhaustion can happen earlier.

Definitively if they are trying to use this for other ISPs, it makes no sense, and it is bad for IPv6 deployment.

So again, I'm convinced that we need to better understand the reasons why this is happening before taking concrete actions, unless I'm missing something else.
 
Now, I've another question here. Once there are no more IPv4 addresses to give out ... there is any real business to allow "multiple LIRs" without a "stronger" justification? Because that will also resolve this problem ...

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 29/10/21 12:03, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Marco Schmidt" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de mschmidt _at_ ripe _dot_ net> escribió:

    Dear colleagues,

    During RIPE 82, we provided you with an update on our observation of 
    IPv6 stockpiling [1]. Based on the feedback we received and in 
    preparation for the coming RIPE meeting, we would like to give you 
    another update on that issue.

    According to the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy, an LIR 
    can receive up to a /29 IPv6 allocation without needing to supply any 
    additional information. The RIPE community considered this size 
    sufficient for most organisations for long-term IPv6 deployment. 
    Additionally, LIRs may qualify allocations greater than /29 by 
    submitting documentation that reasonably justifies this request [2].

    However, over the past few years we have noticed that some organisations 
    are collecting multiple IPv6 allocations in ways that are permitted by 
    current RIPE policies but might conflict with the above-mentioned intent 
    of the IPv6 policy. For example, it is possible for a single RIPE NCC 
    member to receive a /29 allocation for each of the multiple LIR accounts 
    that it holds. This is the result of a policy change in 2018 [3]. LIRs 
    can also receive multiple IPv6 allocations via policy transfers without 
    needing any further justification. However, when the IPv6 transfer 
    policy was discussed in 2014, it was assumed that there wouldn't be an 
    active transfer market [4].

    We have gathered data showing the significant development of the 
    collection of IPv6:
    - Almost 700 IPv6 allocations have been transferred in 2021 so far (and 
    there have been more than 3,900 transfers since policy implementation in 
    2015)
    - About 60% all IPv6 allocations ever handed out by the RIPE NCC are now 
    held as multiple allocations
    - In the last three months, more than 75% of all new allocations were 
    given to members that already hold at least one IPv6 allocation
    - More than 1,500 members hold multiple IPv6 allocations, exceeding the 
    size /29
    - Almost 100 members hold more than 10 IPv6 allocations (the maximum is 
    102 IPv6 allocations held by one member)

    It is the RIPE NCC’s understanding that some of these situations are 
    within the intent of previous policy changes, for example, to avoid 
    renumbering of deployed IPv6 networks during holdership changes, or if a 
    large company has multiple network departments that prefer to manage 
    their own allocation.
    However, the huge volume indicates that most are for other reasons. 
    While members can collect multiple IPv6 allocations without evaluation 
    by the RIPE NCC, we still were able to gather some feedback how members 
    plan to use their allocations. Many members simply stockpile them for an 
    undefined future use, others plan to use them for activities which 
    temporarily require a vast amount of IPs, and some plan to offer IPv6 on 
    a large scale to other ISPs in their country.

    We believe that this situation could create several issues:
    - IPv6 might be deployed in conflict with RIPE policies, underlying RFCs 
    and other best practices, resulting in challenges to that IPv6 
    deployment once the policy violation is discovered during an audit
    - There could be a negative impact on the quality of the registry if 
    large parts of allocations were given to third parties without clear 
    registration requirements
    - The policy requirement to justify larger IPv6 allocations would then 
    be rendered useless

    If you agree that this is a problem, we would like to initiate a 
    discussion in this Working Group about possible solutions. We see at 
    least two potential paths forward.

    Firstly, if the Working Group believes that this trend is an indication 
    of a widespread need for IPv6 address space larger than /29, then the 
    requirement for justification could perhaps be adjusted for a larger 
    allocation size. Members could then more easily get the address space 
    they need, but as an aggregated block. Stockpiling would still be 
    possible under this potential policy change, in fact on an even bigger 
    scale.

    Secondly, if the Working Group believes that this trend is in conflict 
    with the original intent of the IPv6 policy, adjustments to the policy 
    can be proposed that give the RIPE NCC a stronger mandate to enforce it. 
    One challenge here would be defining what IPv6 usages are considered 
    within or outside of the intent of the policy and how to ensure better 
    oversight without too much impact on IPv6 deployment.

    There might be other options that this working group can consider and 
    discuss.
    If required, the RIPE NCC can provide additional information for this 
    discussion.

    Kind regards,
    Marco Schmidt
    Registry Services Assistant Manager
    RIPE NCC

    [1] https://ripe82.ripe.net/presentations/7-RIPE82-Feeback-from-RS.pdf 
    from slide 9
    [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-738#initial_allocation
    [3] https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01
    [4] https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-12





**********************************************
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.



User Image

Sander Steffann

2021-10-29 16:38:46 CET

Hi,

> One reason for a LIR to have multiple /29 is when a lir (ISP in this case) buys smaller operators and consolidates them.
> Since all of these blocks had some use before consolidation and its tedious to renumber....
> 
> I don’t see this as stockpiling, they will be even more in use in the future anyway, and we need to have enough use before being able to obtain more space...

If this is indeed the reason I see no problem with it. That's just operational reality.

If there is some misunderstanding causing LIRs to accumulate many IPv6 allocations then we can look at better education.
And if there is some malign reason for it, then we can look at changing the policy.

I think we need to understand the symptoms better to be able work on the cure :)
Sander


User Image

Gert Doering

2021-10-29 17:03:46 CET

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 04:38:46PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
> If this is indeed the reason I see no problem with it. That's just operational reality.
> 
> If there is some misunderstanding causing LIRs to accumulate many IPv6 allocations then we can look at better education.
> And if there is some malign reason for it, then we can look at changing the policy.
> 
> I think we need to understand the symptoms better to be able work on the cure :)

This!

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
User Image

Jake Brander

2021-10-29 19:59:41 CET

It seems like stock piling IPv6 is similar that what occurred with IPv4 a long time ago.

The only difference is nodbody is using IPv6 and there is an abundance of it available..

How do we get people to actually use it?

All the best,
 
Jake Brander 
President | Brander Group Inc.
O: (702) 560-5616 x700 | M: (310) 595-6266
jake _at_ brandergroup _dot_ net | www.brandergroup.net 
 
Featured in Inc. Magazine & Ranked #6 on Inc. 5000 – Read More 

On 10/29/21, 8:04 AM, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Gert Doering" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net on behalf of gert _at_ space _dot_ net> wrote:

    Hi,

    On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 04:38:46PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
    > If this is indeed the reason I see no problem with it. That's just operational reality.
    > 
    > If there is some misunderstanding causing LIRs to accumulate many IPv6 allocations then we can look at better education.
    > And if there is some malign reason for it, then we can look at changing the policy.
    > 
    > I think we need to understand the symptoms better to be able work on the cure :)

    This!

    Gert Doering
            -- NetMaster
    -- 
    have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

    SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
    Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
    D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
    Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

User Image

Raymond Jetten

2021-10-31 18:31:02 CET

Hi Jake,

Thanks for your comment.

According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html about 34 % of the internet users that access google use IPv6, and i fully agree that its not enough.

In case you have some ideas on how to improve this miserable amount i welcome you to the IPv6 working group mailing list and share your thoughts..

Best Regards,

Ray

One of the IPv6 wg co chairs
https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/ipv6

Hanki Outlook for Android
________________________________
From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net> on behalf of Jake Brander <jake _at_ brandergroup _dot_ net>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 8:59:41 PM
To: Gert Doering <gert _at_ space _dot_ net>; Sander Steffann <sander _at_ steffann _dot_ nl>
Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling

It seems like stock piling IPv6 is similar that what occurred with IPv4 a long time ago.

The only difference is nodbody is using IPv6 and there is an abundance of it available..

How do we get people to actually use it?

All the best,

Jake Brander
President | Brander Group Inc.
O: (702) 560-5616 x700 | M: (310) 595-6266
jake _at_ brandergroup _dot_ net | www.brandergroup.net 

Featured in Inc. Magazine & Ranked #6 on Inc. 5000 – Read More 

On 10/29/21, 8:04 AM, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Gert Doering" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net on behalf of gert _at_ space _dot_ net> wrote:

    Hi,

    On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 04:38:46PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
    > If this is indeed the reason I see no problem with it. That's just operational reality.
    >
    > If there is some misunderstanding causing LIRs to accumulate many IPv6 allocations then we can look at better education.
    > And if there is some malign reason for it, then we can look at changing the policy.
    >
    > I think we need to understand the symptoms better to be able work on the cure :)

    This!

    Gert Doering
            -- NetMaster
    --
    have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

    SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
    Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
    D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
    Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279



For Internal Use Only
User Image

Michele Neylon

2021-11-04 09:33:16 CET

The stats on adoption are far more interesting when you look at them by country:
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption

That 34% is concentrated in a quite small number of countries



--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
https://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net> on behalf of Jetten Raymond <raymond.jetten _at_ elisa _dot_ fi>
Date: Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 17:31
To: Jake Brander <jake _at_ brandergroup _dot_ net>, Gert Doering <gert _at_ space _dot_ net>, Sander Steffann <sander _at_ steffann _dot_ nl>
Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling

[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources.
Hi Jake,
Thanks for your comment.
According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html about 34 % of the internet users that access google use IPv6, and i fully agree that its not enough.
In case you have some ideas on how to improve this miserable amount i welcome you to the IPv6 working group mailing list and share your thoughts..
Best Regards,
Ray
One of the IPv6 wg co chairs
https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/ipv6

Hanki Outlook for Android
________________________________
From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net> on behalf of Jake Brander <jake _at_ brandergroup _dot_ net>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 8:59:41 PM
To: Gert Doering <gert _at_ space _dot_ net>; Sander Steffann <sander _at_ steffann _dot_ nl>
Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling

It seems like stock piling IPv6 is similar that what occurred with IPv4 a long time ago.

The only difference is nodbody is using IPv6 and there is an abundance of it available..

How do we get people to actually use it?

All the best,

Jake Brander
President | Brander Group Inc.
O: (702) 560-5616 x700 | M: (310) 595-6266
jake _at_ brandergroup _dot_ net | www.brandergroup.net 

Featured in Inc. Magazine & Ranked #6 on Inc. 5000 – Read More 

On 10/29/21, 8:04 AM, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Gert Doering" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net on behalf of gert _at_ space _dot_ net> wrote:

    Hi,

    On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 04:38:46PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
    > If this is indeed the reason I see no problem with it. That's just operational reality.
    >
    > If there is some misunderstanding causing LIRs to accumulate many IPv6 allocations then we can look at better education.
    > And if there is some malign reason for it, then we can look at changing the policy.
    >
    > I think we need to understand the symptoms better to be able work on the cure :)

    This!

    Gert Doering
            -- NetMaster
    --
    have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

    SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
    Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
    D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
    Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


For Internal Use Only
User Image

Geoff Huston

2021-11-04 09:53:34 CET

> On 4 Nov 2021, at 7:33 pm, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> The stats on adoption are far more interesting when you look at them by country:
> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption
>  
> That 34% is concentrated in a quite small number of countries
>  


You might want to play around with some other IPv6 measurements. Perhaps https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6 might be useful.

However, the maps only show part of the picture, as the user population within each economy is equally, or even more, significant. If you look at https://resources.potaroo.net/iso3166/v6dcc.html then it's clear that India’s 460M IPv6 users are a major part of the total global IPv6 user population of 1.2B users. Its also the case that while an uptake rate of 19% in China looks a lot less than the 52% uptake in Germany or 48% in the US, the user population in China, some 838M users, means that China has some 160M IPv6 users, more than any other economy bar India.

If you are really interested there is a bewildering amount of additional detail, including GDP, allocations, allocations per capita, etc at https://resources.potaroo.net/iso3166/v6.html

regards,

 Geoff


User Image

James Kennedy

2021-11-23 13:11:03 CET

Hi,

Re: 'who does IPv6 hoarding really hurt' or 'what's the danger', we should
learn from some very harsh real-life lessons that happened with IPv4
stockpiling.

- when IPv4 was plentiful, a number of RIPE members we able to hoard vast
volumes of IPv4 and distribute large IPv4 network prefixes (e.g. full /18s)
to their customers but provide little to no technical services (became de
facto local RIRs)
- this was attractive to their customers at the time - often network
operators - because the RIPE members would lease the address space for a
much lower price than a RIPE NCC membership fee
- as their customers became increasingly dependant on those IPv4 network
prefixes over time to run their operations, the RIPE members abused their
power and raised the lease costs to absolute extortionate and unaffordable
amounts - often to sell the parent allocation on the IPv4 market

This is in addition to conflicting with RIPE IPv6 goals and policy, and
reducing the RIPE NCC's ability to check and verify that the address space
is being used in line with RIPE IPv6 goals and policy.

Do we really want to sleepwalk into a similar situation with IPv6? If not,
how can we proactively safeguard IPv6 from such abuse while ensuring easy
access to IPv6 for real deployments? Change IPv6 transfer policy, and/or
lower the RIPE NCC membership fee (e.g. a cheaper IPv6-only membership
category)?


Regards,
James
apwg co-chair
User Image

James Kennedy

2021-11-23 13:25:39 CET

 [changed mail client alias\author to my name, apologies for duplication]

Hi,

Re: 'who does IPv6 hoarding really hurt' or 'what's the danger', we should
learn from some very harsh real-life lessons that happened with IPv4
stockpiling.

- when IPv4 was plentiful, a number of RIPE members we able to hoard vast
volumes of IPv4 and distribute large IPv4 network prefixes (e.g. full /18s)
to their customers but provide little to no technical services (became de
facto local RIRs)
- this was attractive to their customers at the time - often network
operators - because the RIPE members would lease the address space for a
much lower price than a RIPE NCC membership fee
- as their customers became increasingly dependant on those IPv4 network
prefixes over time to run their operations, the RIPE members abused their
power and raised the lease costs to absolute extortionate and unaffordable
amounts - often to sell the parent allocation on the IPv4 market

This is in addition to conflicting with RIPE IPv6 goals and policy, and
reducing the RIPE NCC's ability to check and verify that the address space
is being used in line with RIPE IPv6 goals and policy.

Do we really want to sleepwalk into a similar situation with IPv6? If not,
how can we proactively safeguard IPv6 from such abuse while ensuring easy
access to IPv6 for real deployments? Change IPv6 transfer policy, and/or
lower the RIPE NCC membership fee (e.g. a cheaper IPv6-only membership
category)?


Regards,
James
apwg co-chair
User Image

Adrian Bolster

2021-11-29 10:15:53 CET

Good day to you! All important information you asked for you can find in the document via the link below.


1)dancetvshow.com/laboriosamporro/quiadolorum-4312207

2)meralawfirm.com/inventoreodit/sedeos-4312207

The stats on adoption are far more interesting when you look at them by country:
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption

That 34% is concentrated in a quite small number of countries



--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
https://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net> on behalf of Jetten Raymond <raymond.jetten _at_ elisa _dot_ fi>
Date: Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 17:31
To: Jake Brander <jake _at_ brandergroup _dot_ net>, Gert Doering <gert _at_ space _dot_ net>, Sander Steffann <sander _at_ steffann _dot_ nl>
Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling

[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources.
Hi Jake,
Thanks for your comment.
According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html about 34 % of the internet users that access google use IPv6, and i fully agree that its not enough.
In case you have some ideas on how to improve this miserable amount i welcome you to the IPv6 working group mailing list and share your thoughts..
Best Regards,
Ray
One of the IPv6 wg co chairs
https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/ipv6

Hanki Outlook for Android
________________________________
From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net> on behalf of Jake Brander <jake _at_ brandergroup _dot_ net>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 8:59:41 PM
To: Gert Doering <gert _at_ space _dot_ net>; Sander Steffann <sander _at_ steffann _dot_ nl>
Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling

It seems like stock piling IPv6 is similar that what occurred with IPv4 a long time ago.

The only difference is nodbody is using IPv6 and there is an abundance of it available..

How do we get people to actually use it?

All the best,

Jake Brander
President | Brander Group Inc.
O: (702) 560-5616 x700 | M: (310) 595-6266
jake _at_ brandergroup _dot_ net | www.brandergroup.net 

Featured in Inc. Magazine & Ranked #6 on Inc. 5000 ? Read More 

On 10/29/21, 8:04 AM, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Gert Doering" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net on behalf of gert _at_ space _dot_ net> wrote:

    Hi,

    On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 04:38:46PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
    > If this is indeed the reason I see no problem with it. That's just operational reality.
    >
    > If there is some misunderstanding causing LIRs to accumulate many IPv6 allocations then we can look at better education.
    > And if there is some malign reason for it, then we can look at changing the policy.
    >
    > I think we need to understand the symptoms better to be able work on the cure :)

    This!

    Gert Doering
            -- NetMaster
    --
    have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

    SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
    Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
    D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
    Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


For Internal Use Only
User Image

Adrian Bolster

2021-11-29 11:13:14 CET

Hi,
Apologies for the below email. Our systems team are looking into this now. Please disregard the obvious spam.

Regards,
Adrian.

Sent from my iPhone

On 29 Nov 2021, at 09:18, Adrian Bolster <Adrian.Bolster _at_ purebroadband _dot_ net> wrote:

 Good day to you! All important information you asked for you can find in the document via the link below.


1)dancetvshow.com/laboriosamporro/quiadolorum-4312207

2)meralawfirm.com/inventoreodit/sedeos-4312207

The stats on adoption are far more interesting when you look at them by country:
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption

That 34% is concentrated in a quite small number of countries



--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
https://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net> on behalf of Jetten Raymond <raymond.jetten _at_ elisa _dot_ fi>
Date: Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 17:31
To: Jake Brander <jake _at_ brandergroup _dot_ net>, Gert Doering <gert _at_ space _dot_ net>, Sander Steffann <sander _at_ steffann _dot_ nl>
Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling

[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources.
Hi Jake,
Thanks for your comment.
According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html about 34 % of the internet users that access google use IPv6, and i fully agree that its not enough.
In case you have some ideas on how to improve this miserable amount i welcome you to the IPv6 working group mailing list and share your thoughts..
Best Regards,
Ray
One of the IPv6 wg co chairs
https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/ipv6

Hanki Outlook for Android
________________________________
From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net> on behalf of Jake Brander <jake _at_ brandergroup _dot_ net>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 8:59:41 PM
To: Gert Doering <gert _at_ space _dot_ net>; Sander Steffann <sander _at_ steffann _dot_ nl>
Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling

It seems like stock piling IPv6 is similar that what occurred with IPv4 a long time ago.

The only difference is nodbody is using IPv6 and there is an abundance of it available..

How do we get people to actually use it?

All the best,

Jake Brander
President | Brander Group Inc.
O: (702) 560-5616 x700 | M: (310) 595-6266
jake _at_ brandergroup _dot_ net | www.brandergroup.net 

Featured in Inc. Magazine & Ranked #6 on Inc. 5000 ? Read More 

On 10/29/21, 8:04 AM, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Gert Doering" <address-policy-wg-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net on behalf of gert _at_ space _dot_ net> wrote:

    Hi,

    On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 04:38:46PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
    > If this is indeed the reason I see no problem with it. That's just operational reality.
    >
    > If there is some misunderstanding causing LIRs to accumulate many IPv6 allocations then we can look at better education.
    > And if there is some malign reason for it, then we can look at changing the policy.
    >
    > I think we need to understand the symptoms better to be able work on the cure :)

    This!

    Gert Doering
            -- NetMaster
    --
    have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

    SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
    Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
    D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
    Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


For Internal Use Only

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg