From MEUZAK6 at aol.com Wed Dec 3 19:39:28 2003 From: MEUZAK6 at aol.com (MEUZAK6 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:39:28 EST Subject: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: selling ip:s? (kf) Message-ID: <156.28f4e7e2.2cff87e0@aol.com> why are we not allowed to sell ip address? i dont understand...please explain...thank you -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike.norris at heanet.ie Thu Dec 4 10:51:23 2003 From: mike.norris at heanet.ie (Mike Norris) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:51:23 -0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: selling ip:s? (kf) Message-ID: <1948D86456DFD511883900306E1C5B97608F84@exchange.heanet.ie> > why are we not allowed to sell ip address? i dont understand...please explain...thank you Quote from ripe-152: "By themselves, these resources have no intrinsic value; their worth is only realised in conjunction with the provision of Internet access. Thus, while registries may charge for their administrative and technical services, they may not charge for name space or address space as such; no unit cost or price tag can be attached to a domain name or to an IP address, public or private. " See http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-152.html for the full document. Regards. Mike Norris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3099 bytes Desc: not available URL: From leo at ripe.net Thu Dec 4 11:11:17 2003 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:11:17 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: selling ip:s? (kf) In-Reply-To: <1948D86456DFD511883900306E1C5B97608F84@exchange.heanet.ie> References: <1948D86456DFD511883900306E1C5B97608F84@exchange.heanet.ie> Message-ID: <20031204101117.GC20925@ripe.net> Hi, On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:51:23AM -0000, Mike Norris wrote: > > > why are we not allowed to sell ip address? i dont understand...please > explain...thank you [...] > See http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-152.html > for the full document. It's also worth noting that this document is being reviewed at the moment. If anyone wants to join the list they can do so from: or, web archives of the archives are available at: Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC From darko.bulat at k2.net Thu Dec 4 11:30:52 2003 From: darko.bulat at k2.net (Darko Bulat) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:30:52 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: selling ip:s? (kf) In-Reply-To: <1948D86456DFD511883900306E1C5B97608F84@exchange.heanet.ie> References: <1948D86456DFD511883900306E1C5B97608F84@exchange.heanet.ie> Message-ID: <3FCF0CDC.9040506@k2.net> Hi That RIPE quote is outdated. Document itself is dated "Date: 22 April 1996". Nowadays "value" cannot (or should not) be prescribed or declared, because as it stands, "value of a thing is what thing can bring". And clearly, IP numbers are very valuable comodity, if available. Legally, however, RIPE (or Internet community ?!) should clarify this "non selling position". That IP numbers cannot be OWNED, and therefore, since noone can claim ownership over certain IP number or IP range, noone is ENTITLED to SELL it, and noone is, therefore, able to buy it. Claiming that "IP numbers themselves" have "no intrinsic value" might be, under certain circumstances, misleading, since, if someone is able to prove othervise (say, "if I can earn money by selling and buying IP numbers/renges, then, hell, they DO have value, not only intrinsic but very real, and very tangible..) then he successfully (if a matter is referred to a court) might undermine current standing that "IP numbers have no intrinsic value". To put it bluntly, "we" should make sure that kind of behaviour (selling and/or trafficking with IP numbers) is treated the same way as selling anything that seller does not own in the first place. I presume, selling a real-estate that one does not own is a crime (fraud?!). At least it's a fraud in my country. Regards! Darko -- Mike Norris wrote: > >> why are we not allowed to sell ip address? i dont understand...please > explain...thank you > > Quote from ripe-152: > > "By themselves, these resources have no intrinsic value; their worth > is only > realised in conjunction with the provision of Internet > access. Thus, while > registries may charge for their administrative and technical > services, they > may not charge for name space or address space as such; no unit cost > or price > tag can be attached to a domain name or to an IP address, public or > private. " > > See http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-152.html for the full document. > > Regards. > > Mike Norris > From kristofer at nh.is Thu Dec 4 11:48:51 2003 From: kristofer at nh.is (Kristofer Sigurdsson) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:48:51 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: selling ip:s? (kf) In-Reply-To: <3FCF0CDC.9040506@k2.net> References: <1948D86456DFD511883900306E1C5B97608F84@exchange.heanet.ie> <3FCF0CDC.9040506@k2.net> Message-ID: <20031204104851.GA31726@pfy.rhi.hi.is> Hi, Darko Bulat, Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 11:30:52AM +0100 : > Hi > > That RIPE quote is outdated. Document itself is dated "Date: 22 April 1996". > > Nowadays "value" cannot (or should not) be prescribed or declared, > because as it stands, "value of a thing is what thing can bring". > > And clearly, IP numbers are very valuable comodity, if available. IP addresses are clearly quite valuable, especially PI ones, not to mention the "allocated unspecified" ones, for obvious reasons. However, the community should definately do everything in it's power to make sure IP addresses are not, under any circumstances, sold. This kind of behaviour would undermine the basic structure of the Internet. I think that, at least in some countries, if this will be allowed, Internet access and especially Internet services, will be reserved only for the rich. This will effectively remove startups from the scene. Secondly, this will most probably create LIRs that have way to much address space on one hand and LIRs that don't have enough on the other... Namespace allocations must be determined by demonstrated need only, in my opinion. > > Legally, however, RIPE (or Internet community ?!) should clarify > this "non selling position". > > That IP numbers cannot be OWNED, and therefore, since noone can > claim ownership over certain IP number or IP range, noone is ENTITLED > to SELL it, and noone is, therefore, able to buy it. I second that. > > Claiming that "IP numbers themselves" have "no intrinsic value" might > be, under certain circumstances, misleading, since, if someone is > able to prove othervise (say, "if I can earn money by selling and > buying IP numbers/renges, then, hell, they DO have value, not only > intrinsic but very real, and very tangible..) then he successfully > (if a matter is referred to a court) might undermine current standing > that "IP numbers have no intrinsic value". > > To put it bluntly, "we" should make sure that kind of behaviour > (selling and/or trafficking with IP numbers) is treated the same way > as selling anything that seller does not own in the first place. I agree. We should update and clearify this policy, not change it, as IP addresses are simply a technical aspect of connected a node to the Internet, not a commodity - they should not constitute an extra cost. -- Krist?fer Sigur?sson Net- og kerfisdeild Neth?nnun ehf. From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Thu Dec 4 13:20:30 2003 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:20:30 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: selling ip:s? (kf) Message-ID: >IP addresses are clearly quite valuable, especially PI ones, not to mention >the "allocated unspecified" ones, for obvious reasons. However, the community >should definately do everything in it's power to make sure IP addresses are >not, under any circumstances, sold. We should also note that any value which may be attached to IPv4 addresses today will likely be significantly diluted as IPv6 is more widely deployed. Anyone who thinks that they will gain some advantage by paying for IPv4 addresses will be greatly disappointed when that advantage evaporates because of IPv6. Scarcity often increases the value of something so we should be quite clear that IPv6 addresses will be so abundant that any intrinsic scarcity value in IP addresses will disappear. I think that this point is important enough to be incorporated in a document regarding IPv4 addresses as a warning. There are already commercial IPv6 services available in Europe as well as several production networks used internally by research and development consortia. There is no doubt that IPv6 has matured and that the growth in the deployment of IPv6 will continue. All of this tends to reduce the pressure on the IPv4 address space and therefore reduces any intrinsic value of an IPv4 address. --Michael Dillon From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Fri Dec 5 18:21:39 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:21:39 -0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: selling ip:s? (kf) References: <1948D86456DFD511883900306E1C5B97608F84@exchange.heanet.ie> <3FCF0CDC.9040506@k2.net> Message-ID: <004001c3bb54$42ba2bd0$36e0a8c0@petersdesktopho> Darko Bulat wrote: > That IP numbers cannot be OWNED, and therefore, since noone can > claim ownership over certain IP number or IP range, noone is ENTITLED > to SELL it, and noone is, therefore, able to buy it. The word is here is "license" (or "licence" whichever). Except in a few cases, I understand licenses can be transferred between unrelated parties. I believe that trying to restrict this transfer (with or without fee) may be against anti-competition and unfair contract law in the EU - especially given the natural monopoly that RIPE has in its operating region. I am not a lawyer, I have just read (and probably misunderstood and misremembered) many computer law books. See words and phrases like "novation" or "company name change" for some starters... The important thing is to find a wording in the license agreement between RIPE and the first licensee that makes this transfer pointless. Maybe. Or that RIPE must have first option to acquire the license for a nominal 1 euro or something. rgds, -- Peter From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Fri Dec 5 18:22:02 2003 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:22:02 -0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: selling ip:s? (kf) References: Message-ID: <004301c3bb54$4c353bf0$36e0a8c0@petersdesktopho> Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote: > We should also note that any value which may be attached to IPv4 > addresses today will likely be significantly diluted as IPv6 is > more widely deployed. Anyone who thinks that they will gain some > advantage by paying for IPv4 addresses will be greatly disappointed > when that advantage evaporates because of IPv6. I have a bridge you may want to buy ... Peter From hpholen at tiscali.no Mon Dec 15 21:33:55 2003 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:33:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IANA Policies for Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to RIRs In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20031006150942.05794c10@localhost> Message-ID: <3F796D830003B1FF@cpfe7.be.tisc.dk> (added by postmaster@cpmail.dk.tiscali.com) Dear Axel, Working Group; The "IANA Policies for Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to RIRs" proposal was presented at the last working group meeting and has been circulated to the list for further comments and discussion. After carefully considering all comments posted to the list and a following email discussion among the working group chairs, I would like to formally declare consensus on this policy in the RIPE NCC service region. As it is now 1 -one- month after the deadline for comments there should have been ample time to voice concerns to the list and no negative comments or concerns have been raised. As a personal note I would like to congratulate the RIRs with this one very important policy document. Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen Address Policy Working Group Chair |-----Original Message----- |From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net |[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Axel Pawlik |Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:11 PM |To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net |Subject: [address-policy-wg] IANA Policies for Allocation of |IPv4 Blocks to RIRs | |Dear Colleagues, | |The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have been working |together with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority |(IANA) on a policy for the allocation of IPv4 address space to |the RIRs. | |The proposed policy was presented to the RIPE Address Policy |Working Group at RIPE 46 in September. The presentation can be |found at: | |http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46- |ap-iana-rir/ | |Following discussion in all four RIR regions, this policy |proposal and discussion results will be forwarded to the ICANN |ASO Address Council for review and submission to the ICANN |Board. It is considered a global policy proposal. | |Please review the document "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority |(IANA) Policies for Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional |Internet Registries". The document can be found at: | |http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/iana-rir-allocation-po |licies.html | |Comments on this proposal should be sent to this list. |The review period is six weeks and will end on 16 November. | |A webcast recording of the entire RIPE Address Policy Working |Group session can be found at: | |mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe46/ap-1a.wmv |mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe46/ap-2a.wmv | |Kind regards, | |Axel | From hpholen at tiscali.no Mon Dec 15 22:58:21 2003 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:58:21 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA allocation size In-Reply-To: <20031024123127.GA16484@Space.Net> Message-ID: <3FD6356800006671@cpfe10.be.tisc.dk> (added by postmaster@cpmail.dk.tiscali.com) Dear WG, I would like to call for closure on this matter. As this has been presented and discussed at the last RIPE meeting and proposed to the list as a formal proposal I would like to declare consensus on this issue. There have been discussion on the mainlinglist with some critical comments that it is my understanding has been clearified. (This proposal does not affect the payment scedule or membership structure and it does not affecting the PI policy). With this I would normaly declare concensus but as no deadline was set for the discussion I propose a 1 week last call for objections to the process on this matter. If I receive objections I propose to set a I month comment period before calling for closure on this matter. Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen Address Policy WG Chair |-----Original Message----- |From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net |[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering |Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:31 PM |To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net |Subject: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of |initial PA allocation size | |Hi, | |this was discussed on the list before the last RIPE meeting, |and we had it on the address policy working group meeting |(presented by me). | |I think we mostly have consensus on this issue, but I want to |present it as a formal proposal, before it's incorporated into |the policy. | | |PROPOSAL: | | * the minimum initial allocation size (for new LIRs) is reduced from | a /20, as of today, to a /21. | (If a new LIR can demonstrate need for a bigger initial allocation, | they can get a larger address block. This will not be changed). | | * the requirement to show an immediate need for 25% of the allocated | address space is removed for the "minimum initial allocation" | | |The motivation for that is that under the current policy, |startup LIRs that do not already hold address space cannot get |an initial PA allocation (which would be a /20 as of today, or |bigger), because in many cases, they cannot demonstrate |immediate need, or prior utilization of sufficient address space. | |To work around this, many startup LIRs use PI address space as |a start, and when they have filled enough of this, apply for |their own PA again. |The problem with this is that in the end, it's very likely |that more than one route will end up in the global BGP table |(where one PA route would be sufficient), and also it |encourages lying to the RIRs (PI space must not be distributed |to third parties, i.e., LIR customers). | | |The drawback of the changes are that it's potentially wasting |address space for "very small LIRs" (that would be happy with |a /23 PI space and will now get a "huge" /21). The wastage |would only happen for very small LIRs that will never grow to |fill the initial /21. |A rough calculation shows that "1000 new LIR /21 allocations" |would need a /11, which is not an unbearable strain on the |conservation side, judging from the total number of LIRs in |RIPE land today. | |A second drawback of this is that people may need to adapt |their BGP filters to permit /21s from the network block(s) |where these allocations are made from. So the RIPE NCC needs |to document this accordingly, and ideally, well in advance. | |Gert Doering | -- NetMaster |-- |Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: |57785 (56883) | |SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net |Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 |80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 | From hpholen at tiscali.no Tue Dec 23 10:17:00 2003 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:17:00 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA allocation size In-Reply-To: <3FD6356800006671@cpfe10.be.tisc.dk> (added by postmaster@cpmail.dk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <3FE68A3100002DAF@cpfe0.be.tisc.dk> (added by postmaster@cpmail.dk.tiscali.com) Dear WG, As I have seen no proposals to prolong this process, we have consensus on this matter. Seasons Greetings, Hans Petter Holen Address Policy WG Chair |Dear WG, |I would like to call for closure on this matter. As this has |been presented and discussed at the last RIPE meeting and |proposed to the list as a formal proposal I would like to |declare consensus on this issue. | |There have been discussion on the mainlinglist with some |critical comments that it is my understanding has been |clearified. (This proposal does not affect the payment scedule |or membership structure and it does not affecting the PI policy). | |With this I would normaly declare concensus but as no deadline |was set for the discussion I propose a 1 week last call for |objections to the process on this matter. If I receive |objections I propose to set a I month comment period before |calling for closure on this matter. | |Best Regards, |Hans Petter Holen |Address Policy WG Chair | ||-----Original Message----- ||From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net ||[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering ||Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:31 PM ||To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net ||Subject: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA ||allocation size || ||Hi, || ||this was discussed on the list before the last RIPE meeting, |and we had ||it on the address policy working group meeting (presented by me). || ||I think we mostly have consensus on this issue, but I want to present ||it as a formal proposal, before it's incorporated into the policy. || || ||PROPOSAL: || || * the minimum initial allocation size (for new LIRs) is reduced from || a /20, as of today, to a /21. || (If a new LIR can demonstrate need for a bigger initial |allocation, || they can get a larger address block. This will not be changed). || || * the requirement to show an immediate need for 25% of the allocated || address space is removed for the "minimum initial allocation" || || ||The motivation for that is that under the current policy, ||startup LIRs that do not already hold address space cannot get ||an initial PA allocation (which would be a /20 as of today, or ||bigger), because in many cases, they cannot demonstrate ||immediate need, or prior utilization of sufficient address space. || ||To work around this, many startup LIRs use PI address space as ||a start, and when they have filled enough of this, apply for ||their own PA again. ||The problem with this is that in the end, it's very likely ||that more than one route will end up in the global BGP table ||(where one PA route would be sufficient), and also it ||encourages lying to the RIRs (PI space must not be distributed ||to third parties, i.e., LIR customers). || || ||The drawback of the changes are that it's potentially wasting ||address space for "very small LIRs" (that would be happy with ||a /23 PI space and will now get a "huge" /21). The wastage ||would only happen for very small LIRs that will never grow to ||fill the initial /21. ||A rough calculation shows that "1000 new LIR /21 allocations" ||would need a /11, which is not an unbearable strain on the ||conservation side, judging from the total number of LIRs in ||RIPE land today. || ||A second drawback of this is that people may need to adapt ||their BGP filters to permit /21s from the network block(s) ||where these allocations are made from. So the RIPE NCC needs ||to document this accordingly, and ideally, well in advance. || ||Gert Doering || -- NetMaster ||-- ||Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: ||57785 (56883) || ||SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net ||Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 ||80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 || | From hpholen at tiscali.no Tue Dec 23 10:25:21 2003 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:25:21 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Draft Agenda for Address Poliy WG @ RIPE 47 In-Reply-To: <3FD6356800006671@cpfe10.be.tisc.dk> (added by postmaster@cpmail.dk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <3FE68A3100002DD8@cpfe0.be.tisc.dk> (added by postmaster@cpmail.dk.tiscali.com) Date: Wednesday, 28 January 2004 Time: 09:00 - 12:30 Location: Grand Ballroomm Krasnapolsky Hotel, Amsterdam Webcast: This session will be webcast - http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/webcast.html A. Administrative Matters - Select a Scribe - List of Participants - Agree Agenda - Approve minutes from RIPE 46 and RIPE 45: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/msg00176.html B. RIPE NCC Update (Leo Vegoda, RIPE NCC) C. ICANN ASO AC Update (TBD, ICANN ASO AC) D. Policy Development Process (TBD) E. AfriNIC: Status & Transition proposal (TBD) F. Charging by LIRs (TBD) G. RIRs' IPv6 Address Space requirements (Arno Meulenkamp, RIPE NCC) H. DENIC proposal for IPv4/IPv6 Anycast DNS Infrastructure Policy (Andreas B??, DENIC) I. Changing the 80% rule for IPv4 allocations (TBD) J. Review IPv6 policy (TBD) [...] Y. Open Mic. - Free to All Attendees Z. AOB From filiz at ripe.net Tue Dec 23 11:26:47 2003 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:26:47 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Change of Minumum IPv4 Allocation Size Message-ID: <20031223102646.GC3928@x13.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The final date for comments on the "Last Call" on the proposal to change the minimum IPv4 allocation size to /21 ended on 22 December 2003. There were no comments made therefore we will implement this policy change on 1 January 2004. Please note that there will be two changes. Firstly, the minimum IPv4 allocation size is /21. Secondly, it is no longer required to demonstrate efficient utilisation of a /22. Our supporting documentation and software will be updated as soon as possible. Please note that /21 allocations will only come from the 83.0.0.0/8 and 84.0.0.0/8 blocks. A full listing of the "Smallest RIPE NCC Allocation / Assignment Sizes" can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Snr. Hostmaster RIPE NCC From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Dec 23 22:02:03 2003 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeff Williams) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:02:03 -0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA allocation size References: <3FE68A3100002DAF@cpfe0.be.tisc.dk> (added by postmaster@cpmail.dk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <3FE8AD4A.D6FB5F3D@ix.netcom.com> Hans and all, You are mistaken Hans. It would benefit you and everyone here if you would track Apnic a little closer... Hans Petter Holen wrote: > Dear WG, > As I have seen no proposals to prolong this process, we have consensus on > this matter. > > Seasons Greetings, > Hans Petter Holen > Address Policy WG Chair > > |Dear WG, > |I would like to call for closure on this matter. As this has > |been presented and discussed at the last RIPE meeting and > |proposed to the list as a formal proposal I would like to > |declare consensus on this issue. > | > |There have been discussion on the mainlinglist with some > |critical comments that it is my understanding has been > |clearified. (This proposal does not affect the payment scedule > |or membership structure and it does not affecting the PI policy). > | > |With this I would normaly declare concensus but as no deadline > |was set for the discussion I propose a 1 week last call for > |objections to the process on this matter. If I receive > |objections I propose to set a I month comment period before > |calling for closure on this matter. > | > |Best Regards, > |Hans Petter Holen > |Address Policy WG Chair > | > ||-----Original Message----- > ||From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > ||[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering > ||Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:31 PM > ||To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > ||Subject: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA > ||allocation size > || > ||Hi, > || > ||this was discussed on the list before the last RIPE meeting, > |and we had > ||it on the address policy working group meeting (presented by me). > || > ||I think we mostly have consensus on this issue, but I want to present > ||it as a formal proposal, before it's incorporated into the policy. > || > || > ||PROPOSAL: > || > || * the minimum initial allocation size (for new LIRs) is reduced from > || a /20, as of today, to a /21. > || (If a new LIR can demonstrate need for a bigger initial > |allocation, > || they can get a larger address block. This will not be changed). > || > || * the requirement to show an immediate need for 25% of the allocated > || address space is removed for the "minimum initial allocation" > || > || > ||The motivation for that is that under the current policy, > ||startup LIRs that do not already hold address space cannot get > ||an initial PA allocation (which would be a /20 as of today, or > ||bigger), because in many cases, they cannot demonstrate > ||immediate need, or prior utilization of sufficient address space. > || > ||To work around this, many startup LIRs use PI address space as > ||a start, and when they have filled enough of this, apply for > ||their own PA again. > ||The problem with this is that in the end, it's very likely > ||that more than one route will end up in the global BGP table > ||(where one PA route would be sufficient), and also it > ||encourages lying to the RIRs (PI space must not be distributed > ||to third parties, i.e., LIR customers). > || > || > ||The drawback of the changes are that it's potentially wasting > ||address space for "very small LIRs" (that would be happy with > ||a /23 PI space and will now get a "huge" /21). The wastage > ||would only happen for very small LIRs that will never grow to > ||fill the initial /21. > ||A rough calculation shows that "1000 new LIR /21 allocations" > ||would need a /11, which is not an unbearable strain on the > ||conservation side, judging from the total number of LIRs in > ||RIPE land today. > || > ||A second drawback of this is that people may need to adapt > ||their BGP filters to permit /21s from the network block(s) > ||where these allocations are made from. So the RIPE NCC needs > ||to document this accordingly, and ideally, well in advance. > || > ||Gert Doering > || -- NetMaster > ||-- > ||Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: > ||57785 (56883) > || > ||SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net > ||Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > ||80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > || > | Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801