From frederic at placenet.org Tue Apr 1 16:31:09 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:31:09 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] about policy proposal : 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) Message-ID: <1207060269.6878.15.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> << To qualify for a direct assignment, the organisation must become a Local Internet Registry (LIR) or have a similar contractual relation >> 2006-1 The organisation MUST be LIR. but with ipv4-PI, the organisation must not be an LIR. so for Pi-ipv6 like pi-ipv4. the organisation must request assignement thru an LIR. but not MUST be an LIR. Why PI-ipv6 is not possible today ? we beleive that is it important for organisation who use Pi-ipv4 today, to have the possiblity to request PI-ipv6. so ripe must adopt the proposal of PI-ipv6, right now. We support all of proposal that not block assignment of PI-ipv6. so we support 2006-1 the status of LIR is not required by the organisation that request but the request must be done by an LIR. and we support 2008-1 and 2005-08 End User- assignent is done by LIR or ISP. : /64 for physical/extra small organisation. /56 organisation. bst regards Frederic From roque at lacnic.net Wed Apr 2 16:34:52 2008 From: roque at lacnic.net (Roque Gagliano) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 11:34:52 -0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2008-03 Discussion Period has ended (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space) In-Reply-To: <20080402115821.583042F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080402115821.583042F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: Filiz, I guess the option is 1) we will be presenting the proposal at RIPE meeting. Regards, Roque On Apr 2, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2008-03 > Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space > > Dear all, > > The discussion period for the proposal described in > 2008-03 has ended. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-03.html > > Please note that there we no posts to the mailing list regarding the > proposal. > > Please reply to this email to let us know how you would like to > proceed. > > * Do you want to prepare the documentation that will support this > policy change? We will send you further instructions about this. > > * Do you want to extend the discussion period? Please let us know > what > date you wish to extend it to, and we will tell the RIPE community. > > * Do you want to update the text in your proposal and set a new > discussion period? > > * Do you want to withdraw this proposal? > > Please let us know your decision in the next seven days. > > We look forward to your response. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 194 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Apr 3 11:23:27 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 10:23:27 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2008-03 Discussion Period has ended (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space) In-Reply-To: References: <20080402115821.583042F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: > I guess the option is 1) we will be presenting the proposal at RIPE meeting. The ETNO, an association of Europe's largest Internet network operators, has unanimously opposed this proposal: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-03.html Specifically, in the presentation at RIPE 55 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/mcfadden-etno.pd f they stated that IPv4 countdown proposals which suggest countdowns or set-asides are not needed and artificial. They also state that RIPE should continue to use the existing processes that it always has used. This may explain why it was never discussed on the list, i.e. most people thought that it would never, ever be accepted by RIPE. Given this fact, will your presentation specifically address the major flaw of the proposal, i.e. that it will actually MAKE THINGS WORSE by making the date of free pool exhaustion earlier than we had expected? In addition, will your presentation review the status of this proposal in the other 4 RIRs, particularly in ARIN where it has not received much support. Since your proposal is a global one, under the NRO rules, it has to be passed by all 5 RIRs. If it has already failed elsewhere, then why should RIPE waste anymore time with it? --Michael Dillon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From filiz at ripe.net Mon Apr 7 15:28:53 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:28:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Message-ID: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2007-01 Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2007-01 is now at its Concluding Phase. This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC must be established before the End User receives Internet number resources (Autonomous System (AS) Number, Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 and IPv6, Internet Exchange Point (IXP) and anycasting assignments) directly from the RIPE NCC. It also states that the text in the policy should mention more explicitly that PI assignments can not be sub-assigned. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 5 May 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Apr 7 16:09:29 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:09:29 +0100 Subject: [BULK] [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: > The proposal described in 2007-01 is now at its Concluding Phase. > > This proposal states that a contractual relationship between > an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC must be > established before the End User receives Internet number > resources I would like to see RIPE have some kind of fast-track implementation of this policy for those end-user organizations who choose to apply directly to RIPE for Internet Number resources. In other words, rather than making everybody wait until all end-users can be notified, etc., etc., if an organizations submits a request for resources, then they will be dealt with first in the queue. The policy impact statement refers to a one-time activity of investigating and making changes to all existing non-PA space assignments. While this is definitely a good thing to do, I would like to see it happen in parallel to enabling new applicants to get resources under the new policy. I understand that even with such new applicants, there will be an inevitable delay while RIPE works out details of the contracts, etc., but I am asking for this delay to be made as short as possible. Thanks, --Michael Dillon From frederic at placenet.org Mon Apr 7 16:09:00 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:09:00 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <1207577340.14155.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Le lundi 07 avril 2008 ? 15:28 +0200, Filiz Yilmaz a ?crit : > PDP Number: 2007-01 > Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC > > Dear Colleagues, > > The proposal described in 2007-01 is now at its Concluding Phase. > > This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End > User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC must be established before > the End User receives Internet number resources (Autonomous System > (AS) Number, Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 and IPv6, Internet > Exchange Point (IXP) and anycasting assignments) directly from the > RIPE NCC. It also states that the text in the policy should mention > more explicitly that PI assignments can not be sub-assigned. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html > > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 5 May 2008. > We support if: No Fees is required for this ?contractual relationship. and this contractual relation ship do not exist between and user and one LIR. else we do not support, today system works well. bst regards. Frederic CELLA > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer > From president at ukraine.su Mon Apr 7 17:01:49 2008 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:01:49 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <1207577340.14155.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> References: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> <1207577340.14155.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <47FA375D.9040103@ukraine.su> Frederic, current system is NOT working well. Just because we can't trace dead companies and dead assignments and reuse it. In 1-2 years all unused space will be assigned. But if even that policy will be implemented - how we can enforce it? How can we revoke that space if need? Frederic wrote: > We support if: > No Fees is required for this ?contractual relationship. > and this contractual relation ship do not exist between and user and one > LIR. > > else > we do not support, today system works well. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From alexlh at ripe.net Mon Apr 7 17:50:25 2008 From: alexlh at ripe.net (Alex Le Heux) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:50:25 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New AS Number Block allocated to the RIPE NCC Message-ID: <4D777FF8-D211-4BE1-8378-5A4B1537A8EF@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the AS Number Block 47104 - 48127 from the IANA in April 2008. You may want to update your records accordingly. Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC From shane at time-travellers.org Mon Apr 7 20:22:29 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 20:22:29 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <47FA375D.9040103@ukraine.su> References: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> <1207577340.14155.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FA375D.9040103@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <20080407182229.GA23506@borg.c-l-i.net> Max, I agree with you. I don't care so much about how to revoke space in the IPv6 context, but it would be nice to know who is responsible for originating traffic. Or at least if someone, somewhere knew who is responsible for originating traffic. On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 06:01:49PM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote: > > current system is NOT working well. > > Just because we can't trace dead companies and dead assignments and > reuse it. In 1-2 years all unused space will be assigned. > > But if even that policy will be implemented - how we can enforce it? > How can we revoke that space if need? -- Shane From president at ukraine.su Mon Apr 7 21:47:55 2008 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:47:55 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080407182229.GA23506@borg.c-l-i.net> References: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> <1207577340.14155.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FA375D.9040103@ukraine.su> <20080407182229.GA23506@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <47FA7A6B.405@ukraine.su> Shane, please note we failed in IPv6 migration. IPv6 is only nice toy, but not a new Internet. Just set up your Windows PC to be IPv6 only and see it yourself. And we have no time to change that. But why do you think information about source of traffic will be more accurate than it is now? Note, we can't enforce it by 2007-01. We even not implementing any [periodic] checking there. Shane Kerr wrote: > Max, > > I agree with you. > > I don't care so much about how to revoke space in the IPv6 context, > but it would be nice to know who is responsible for originating > traffic. Or at least if someone, somewhere knew who is responsible for > originating traffic. > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 06:01:49PM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote: >> current system is NOT working well. >> >> Just because we can't trace dead companies and dead assignments and >> reuse it. In 1-2 years all unused space will be assigned. >> >> But if even that policy will be implemented - how we can enforce it? >> How can we revoke that space if need? > > -- > Shane > -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Tue Apr 8 04:18:45 2008 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 04:18:45 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC" Message-ID: <47FAD605.3050200@ripe.net> [ I wanted to send this a little earlier, but was caught up in transit to the ARIN meeting. cheers, Axel ] Dear all, It has come to my attention that the community has pointed out that there is no draft of an actual End User contract included in policy proposal 2007-01. This issue has been raised after the proposal was moved to the Review Phase of the Policy Development Process (PDP) and a draft policy document was published. After extensive discussion, the RIPE NCC Executive Board does not believe that the addition of a draft contract to proposal 2007-01 is necessary. Preferred model The Executive Board anticipates that this proposal will introduce a dual model whereby an End User can chose to have *either* a contract with a "sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR)" or directly with the RIPE NCC. The Executive Board believes that having a ?sponsoring LIR? is the preferred model; the RIPE NCC currently has more than 5400 members, from which the sponsoring LIR can be chosen. This model has been outlined in the draft document. Further, the Executive Board maintains that the RIPE NCC should not be involved in any contractual processes or details that occur between an LIR and its customer. Such contracts should be formulated by the "sponsoring" LIR and not by the RIPE NCC. However, the Executive Board would like to point out that any contract between End User and "sponsoring LIR" must be formulated clearly so that the End User understands the consequences,as outlined in the RIPE proposal, of applying for or holding a direct resource assignment. Proposal 2007-01, and existing RIPE policies, already have references to such consequences and outline possible cautions that "supporting LIRs" may want to include in their customers' contracts. The RIPE NCC, however, will always available for consultation about the consequences and cautions mentioned above. Direct contracts with the RIPE NCC The Executive Board also understands that the proposal introduces the option for those End Users who cannot form a contract with a "Sponsoring LIR" to form a contract directly with the RIPE NCC. In this case the End User will be required to set up an LIR and become a RIPE NCC member. Charging Scheme If this proposal is accepted, the charging scheme applied by the RIPE NCC to "Sponsoring LIRs" will be addressed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board in due course and reviewed by the RIPE NCC membership during RIPE NCC General Meetings. Conclusion Overall, the Executive Board and I understand that the proposal's intention is to facilitate clear and improved contractual relationships with End Users so that the obligations of responsible stewardship of Internet resources can be fulfilled by LIRs and the RIPE NCC. We believe that the details of the actual contracts between End User and "supporting LIR" should be devised by the LIR. It is, of course, the responsibility of the LIRs together with the RIPE NCC to ensure that the details set out in these contracts comply with the guidelines that the RIPE policies have set. Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC From andy at nosignal.org Tue Apr 8 11:19:48 2008 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 10:19:48 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC" In-Reply-To: <47FAD605.3050200@ripe.net> References: <47FAD605.3050200@ripe.net> Message-ID: <38708BBE-3351-4BB6-AC03-6EE4C7276B18@nosignal.org> Hi, On 8 Apr 2008, at 03:18, Axel Pawlik wrote: > The Executive Board also understands that the proposal introduces > the option for those End Users who cannot form a contract with a > "Sponsoring LIR" to form a contract directly with the RIPE NCC. Thanks for a clear direction/opinion. Please can you identify such an occasion when you think the above may apply ? > In this case the End User will be required to set up an LIR and > become a RIPE NCC member. Based on Axel's comments that End Site -> LIR -> RIR will still be the encouraged application route, and that end sites will need to join the RIPE NCC in order to apply for resources, I support 2007-01. Best wishes Andy From shane at time-travellers.org Tue Apr 8 11:38:52 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 11:38:52 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <47FA7A6B.405@ukraine.su> References: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> <1207577340.14155.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FA375D.9040103@ukraine.su> <20080407182229.GA23506@borg.c-l-i.net> <47FA7A6B.405@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <20080408093852.GA8103@borg.c-l-i.net> Max, I'm going to repeat stuff you already know. Sorry! Regarding the source of the traffic, right now in IPv4 we have the situation where we have: IANA -> RIPE NCC -> LIR -> PI recipient Once the link between the RIPE NCC and the LIR, or between the LIR and PI recipient is broken, the space is completely untraceable. It's a bad design, and while I understand that it is a lot less work for the RIPE NCC to only deal with LIR, I think it should be the responsibility of the RIPE NCC to know who the actual recipient of number resources is. So this is what 2007-01 begins to fix. Good proposal, even if it comes 10 years later than it should have. :) But for IPv6 we do *not* have this situation today. IPv6 policy is not yet badly broken, in spite of the efforts of IPv6 zealots to move IPv6 into an unmanagable state by giving IPv6 allocations out on beer mats (I refer to 2008-01, which is a Bad Proposal as it tries to infect IPv6 with the chaos of IPv4). -- Shane On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 10:47:55PM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote: > > please note we failed in IPv6 migration. IPv6 is only nice toy, but not > a new Internet. Just set up your Windows PC to be IPv6 only and see it > yourself. And we have no time to change that. > > But why do you think information about source of traffic will be more > accurate than it is now? Note, we can't enforce it by 2007-01. We even > not implementing any [periodic] checking there. From frederic at placenet.org Tue Apr 8 11:58:54 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:58:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080408093852.GA8103@borg.c-l-i.net> References: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> <1207577340.14155.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FA375D.9040103@ukraine.su> <20080407182229.GA23506@borg.c-l-i.net> <47FA7A6B.405@ukraine.su> <20080408093852.GA8103@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <1207648734.6404.8.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Le mardi 08 avril 2008 ? 11:38 +0200, Shane Kerr a ?crit : > Max, > > I'm going to repeat stuff you already know. Sorry! > > Regarding the source of the traffic, right now in IPv4 we have the > situation where we have: > > IANA -> RIPE NCC -> LIR -> PI recipient > > Once the link between the RIPE NCC and the LIR, or between the LIR and > PI recipient is broken, the space is completely untraceable. why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI holder thru Database information. Dead PI is like Dead Domain name. a simple procedure thru mail communication can force to have news about "may be Dead" block and take the good decision. To force "Contractual Link with Ripe" for PI bloc is not the good way. To force Fees is not good too. bst regards. Frederic From leo.vegoda at icann.org Tue Apr 8 14:29:25 2008 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 05:29:25 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <1207648734.6404.8.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: Hi Frederic, On 08/04/2008 03:58, "Frederic" wrote: [...] > why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI holder > thru Database information. > > Dead PI is like Dead Domain name. This is a fairly good analogy. My understanding of domain names is that they are normally delegated according to a contract with a registry or registrar. If the contract ends the delegation is removed. > a simple procedure thru mail communication can force to have news about > "may be Dead" block and take the good decision. > > To force "Contractual Link with Ripe" for PI bloc is not the good way. > To force Fees is not good too. I pay small fees for the domains I have registered. Is your opposition to this proposal based on the size of the fee or are you opposed to there being any fees at all? Regards, Leo Vegoda From s.steffann at computel.nl Tue Apr 8 14:53:01 2008 From: s.steffann at computel.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:53:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC" In-Reply-To: <47FAD605.3050200@ripe.net> References: <47FAD605.3050200@ripe.net> Message-ID: Hello Axel, I think you and/or the NCC board has misinterpreted the proposal. > Preferred model > > The Executive Board anticipates that this proposal will introduce a dual > model whereby an End User can chose to have *either* a contract with a > "sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR)" or directly with the RIPE NCC. This is correct, however; > Direct contracts with the RIPE NCC > > The Executive Board also understands that the proposal introduces the > option for those End Users who cannot form a contract with a "Sponsoring > LIR" to form a contract directly with the RIPE NCC. In this case the End > User will be required to set up an LIR and become a RIPE NCC member. This is not. It is intended that there will be a new kind of contract between the RIPE NCC and the End User. It is specifically not intended to be an LIR contract. Nick Hilliard proposed the following in his RIPE 55 presentation: End-user can deal with RIPE NCC directly - envisage a web based auto-signup procedure - fully automated, no human interaction - registration expires unless bills are paid He also included a transfer method in his presentation: Careful transfer method required, to deal with: - friendly transfer from LIR to LIR - transfer from hostile LIR at end-users?request - transfer from LIR to RIPE NCC - transfer from RIPE NCC to LIR As you can see, this does not fit with your / the boards interpretation of the policy. Therefore the following part of your message does not seem to apply anymore: > After extensive discussion, the RIPE NCC Executive Board does not believe > that the addition of a draft contract to proposal 2007-01 is necessary. I would like to ask the RIPE NCC Executive Board to make a draft contract which conforms to the intentions of policy proposal 2007-01. Thank you, Sander Steffann Address Policy WG co-chair From frederic at placenet.org Tue Apr 8 15:11:21 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:11:21 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1207660281.14633.17.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Le mardi 08 avril 2008 ? 05:29 -0700, Leo Vegoda a ?crit : > Hi Frederic, > > On 08/04/2008 03:58, "Frederic" wrote: > > [...] > > > why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI holder > > thru Database information. > > > > Dead PI is like Dead Domain name. > > This is a fairly good analogy. My understanding of domain names is that they > are normally delegated according to a contract with a registry or registrar. > If the contract ends the delegation is removed. > > > a simple procedure thru mail communication can force to have news about > > "may be Dead" block and take the good decision. > > > > To force "Contractual Link with Ripe" for PI bloc is not the good way. > > To force Fees is not good too. > > I pay small fees for the domains I have registered. > > Is your opposition to this proposal based on the size of the fee or are you > opposed to there being any fees at all? > 1) first i talk about domain for the way to check if is still alive: you receive one mail, two.... before is deleting. and you pay where you want your domain, you have a lot of choice. Some domain are free and you have choice to use it (eu.org, .st, .nf....) About fees: When a real work is done , is normal to pay for is work. (and the amount is equal to the effort and time to made this work...). About: ?IANA -> RIPE NCC -> LIR -> PI recipient and may be ?IANA -> RIPE NCC -> PI recipient the probleme (and is a political problem) is to have choice. We support to have contractual link with the compagny that you decide for PI. request must be free (and free of tax ;). In our non profit company, we talk about Ipv6. and we "do not understand" why assignement are different that Ipv4. why is not possible when you have Ipv4-Pi to request right now Ipv6-PI. "do not understand" = we understand the process, the ripe policy etc... but we do not understand why Pa assignement are available, not PI. (the answer was : we must go to policy proposal mailing list of ripe ;) bst regards. Frederic > Regards, > > Leo Vegoda > From leo.vegoda at icann.org Tue Apr 8 15:21:52 2008 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 06:21:52 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <1207660281.14633.17.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: Hi Frederic, On 08/04/2008 07:11, "Frederic" wrote: [...] >> Is your opposition to this proposal based on the size of the fee or are you >> opposed to there being any fees at all? >> > > 1) first i talk about domain for the way to check if is still alive: you > receive one mail, two.... before is deleting. and you pay where you want > your domain, you have a lot of choice. This seems to be a procedural rather than a policy matter. > About fees: > When a real work is done , is normal to pay for is work. (and the amount > is equal to the effort and time to made this work...). > > > About: > ?IANA -> RIPE NCC -> LIR -> PI recipient > and may be > ?IANA -> RIPE NCC -> PI recipient > > the probleme (and is a political problem) is to have choice. > > We support to have contractual link with the compagny that you decide > for PI. > > request must be free (and free of tax ;). That's not for us to decide. Fees are determined by the RIPE NCC membership, not the Address Policy WG. > In our non profit company, we talk about Ipv6. and we "do not > understand" why assignement are different that Ipv4. why is not possible > when you have Ipv4-Pi to request right now Ipv6-PI. > > "do not understand" = we understand the process, the ripe policy etc... > but we do not understand why Pa assignement are available, not PI. (the > answer was : we must go to policy proposal mailing list of ripe ;) That's a different policy proposal than this one (2007-01). IPv6 PI assignments are proposed in 2006-01 and 2008-01. Regards, Leo Vegoda From frederic at placenet.org Tue Apr 8 15:35:53 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:35:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1207661753.14633.28.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> > That's a different policy proposal than this one (2007-01). IPv6 PI > assignments are proposed in 2006-01 and 2008-01. > i know, i know ;) 2007-1 is to determine : proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC must be established before the End User receives Internet number resources contractual relationship will be made with Fees. we cannot occult this. (the amount is not the fact of proposal). Today i have choice, i have a relationship with my LIR (contractual or not) i ask AS and PI (is it justify regarding RIPE condition) and i have it. i do not need to have contractual relationship. we do not support: because we want keep the free of the choice. and the argument to said we have "dead compagny" and we need to know by a contractual relationship is not for us a good way, A procedure seems to be a good way... a procedure like domain name. bst regards. Frederic > Regards, > > Leo Vegoda > From shane at time-travellers.org Tue Apr 8 15:51:28 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 15:51:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <1207648734.6404.8.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> References: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> <1207577340.14155.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FA375D.9040103@ukraine.su> <20080407182229.GA23506@borg.c-l-i.net> <47FA7A6B.405@ukraine.su> <20080408093852.GA8103@borg.c-l-i.net> <1207648734.6404.8.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <20080408135128.GA14594@borg.c-l-i.net> Frederic, On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:58:54AM +0200, Frederic wrote: > Le mardi 08 avril 2008 ? 11:38 +0200, Shane Kerr a ?crit : > > Max, > > > > I'm going to repeat stuff you already know. Sorry! > > > > Regarding the source of the traffic, right now in IPv4 we have the > > situation where we have: > > > > IANA -> RIPE NCC -> LIR -> PI recipient > > > > Once the link between the RIPE NCC and the LIR, or between the LIR > > and PI recipient is broken, the space is completely untraceable. > > > why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI holder > thru Database information. > > Dead PI is like Dead Domain name. > > a simple procedure thru mail communication can force to have news > about "may be Dead" block and take the good decision. > > To force "Contractual Link with Ripe" for PI bloc is not the good > way. To force Fees is not good too. To be clear, I don't care about a signed contract, and I really don't care about fees. What you are talking about is an agreement between two parties, the RIPE NCC and the address holder. Something like this(*): PI holders must maintain an up to date e-mail address with the RIPE NCC. If they do not, the PI space will be returned to the unused pool. I support this, also. :) -- Shane (*) When I write it, not when lawyers write it. From gert at space.net Tue Apr 8 15:52:11 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 15:52:11 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <1207661753.14633.28.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> References: <1207661753.14633.28.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <20080408135211.GC11038@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 03:35:53PM +0200, Frederic wrote: > > That's a different policy proposal than this one (2007-01). IPv6 PI > > assignments are proposed in 2006-01 and 2008-01. > > i know, i know ;) > > 2007-1 is to determine : proposal states that a contractual relationship > between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC must be > established before the End User receives Internet number resources Exactly. > contractual relationship will be made with Fees. we cannot occult this. > (the amount is not the fact of proposal). This is also true. > Today i have choice, i have a relationship with my LIR (contractual or > not) i ask AS and PI (is it justify regarding RIPE condition) and i have > it. i do not need to have contractual relationship. Today, you already need a contractual relationship with someone to get the AS and IPv4 PI space routed for you. So having another contract that basically specifies "if I cease to exist, my AS and PI fall back to the RIPE NCC" is not *that* much more effort. Given the past discussions about 2006-01, there will *not* be IPv6 PI space without a clear contractual relationship. So you need to decide what you want: do you want IPv6 PI? In that case, please really consider whether 2007-01 so bad that you can never ever accept it - because if 2007-01 is not accepted, there will NOT be IPv6 PI any time soon. > we do not support: because we want keep the free of the choice. and the With 2007-01, you *do* have the choice - you can use any LIR you want (if you change LIRs, just move your contract) - if all LIRs in your region are inacceptable, you can have a direct contract with the RIPE NCC. So you actually have *more* choice than today. Today, there is no way to do business directly with the RIPE NCC. > argument to said we have "dead compagny" and we need to know by a > contractual relationship is not for us a good way, A procedure seems to > be a good way... a procedure like domain name. Domain names require a) a contract, and b) a yearly fee (at least for domains under most commercially relevant top-level domains). 2007-01 is actually modelled quite similar to the way the .DE TLD operates. Please re-read the discussions about 2006-01, and 2007-01, and think about what you *really* want - good for you, and good for the Internet as a whole. The end result will always be a compromise, because there is no way to make everybody happy at the same time - but we need to find a compromise that is better than what we currently have (which is *bad*). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Tue Apr 8 15:53:48 2008 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:53:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC" In-Reply-To: <38708BBE-3351-4BB6-AC03-6EE4C7276B18@nosignal.org> References: <47FAD605.3050200@ripe.net> <38708BBE-3351-4BB6-AC03-6EE4C7276B18@nosignal.org> Message-ID: <47FB78EC.1080308@ripe.net> Andy Davidson wrote: > > Hi, > > On 8 Apr 2008, at 03:18, Axel Pawlik wrote: > >> The Executive Board also understands that the proposal introduces the >> option for those End Users who cannot form a contract with a >> "Sponsoring LIR" to form a contract directly with the RIPE NCC. > > Thanks for a clear direction/opinion. Please can you identify such an > occasion when you think the above may apply ? Andy, this provision is for the case that an end user cannot find a friendly LIR / RIPE NCC member to take him under its wings. I don't think that this is a very likely case, but you mileage may vary. >> In this case the End User will be required to set up an LIR and become >> a RIPE NCC member. > > Based on Axel's comments that End Site -> LIR -> RIR will still be the > encouraged application route, and that end sites will need to join the > RIPE NCC in order to apply for resources, I support 2007-01. Misunderstanding? End users who establish a relationship with an LIR will not have to become RIPE NCC members. One contract should be enough :-) cheers, Axel From andy at nosignal.org Tue Apr 8 15:58:46 2008 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:58:46 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC" In-Reply-To: <47FB78EC.1080308@ripe.net> References: <47FAD605.3050200@ripe.net> <38708BBE-3351-4BB6-AC03-6EE4C7276B18@nosignal.org> <47FB78EC.1080308@ripe.net> Message-ID: <3A61791E-553D-450C-BB0F-1FEFBA2EECAE@nosignal.org> On 8 Apr 2008, at 14:53, Axel Pawlik wrote: > Misunderstanding? > End users who establish a relationship with an LIR will not have to > become RIPE NCC members. One contract should be enough :-) Sorry, misunderstanding yes - end sites who do not send their request through an LIR will need to become members. best wishes andy From frederic at placenet.org Tue Apr 8 16:32:55 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:32:55 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080408135211.GC11038@Space.Net> References: <1207661753.14633.28.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <20080408135211.GC11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: <1207665175.14633.49.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> > Domain names require a) a contract, and b) a yearly fee (at least for > domains under most commercially relevant top-level domains). 2007-01 is > actually modelled quite similar to the way the .DE TLD operates. > the at least is important, you have choice : contract or no contract. fees or not fees. 2007-1 limit choice : contract with LIR that has contract with RIPE or contract with Ripe is it the same. > Please re-read the discussions about 2006-01, and 2007-01, and think > about what you *really* want - good for you, and good for the Internet > as a whole. The end result will always be a compromise, because there > is no way to make everybody happy at the same time - but we need to find > a compromise that is better than what we currently have (which is *bad*). > yes. the 2007-1 concern internet ressource like AS and PI (not PA). this 2007-1 affect PI. and in a way the 2008-1 (because a lot of inetnum holder do not have contract). well for whole Internet. i do not beleive that the same rule for EVERYBODY MUST FOLLOW is the good/bad choice. what we believe is: to let a little window of freedom/choice. today ipv4-PI holder has this freedom. the compromise is: must have contract relationship become may have contract relationship. bst regards. Frederic > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair From tim.streater at dante.org.uk Tue Apr 8 16:33:15 2008 From: tim.streater at dante.org.uk (Tim Streater) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:33:15 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080408135128.GA14594@borg.c-l-i.net> References: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> <1207577340.14155.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FA375D.9040103@ukraine.su> <20080407182229.GA23506@borg.c-l-i.net> <47FA7A6B.405@ukraine.su> <20080408093852.GA8103@borg.c-l-i.net> <1207648734.6404.8.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <20080408135128.GA14594@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: At 14:51 08/04/2008, Shane Kerr wrote: >Frederic, > >On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:58:54AM +0200, Frederic wrote: > > Le mardi 08 avril 2008 ? 11:38 +0200, Shane Kerr a ?crit : > > > Max, > > > > > > I'm going to repeat stuff you already know. Sorry! > > > > > > Regarding the source of the traffic, right now in IPv4 we have the > > > situation where we have: > > > > > > IANA -> RIPE NCC -> LIR -> PI recipient > > > > > > Once the link between the RIPE NCC and the LIR, or between the LIR > > > and PI recipient is broken, the space is completely untraceable. > > > > > > why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI holder > > thru Database information. > > > > Dead PI is like Dead Domain name. > > > > a simple procedure thru mail communication can force to have news > > about "may be Dead" block and take the good decision. > > > > To force "Contractual Link with Ripe" for PI bloc is not the good > > way. To force Fees is not good too. > >To be clear, I don't care about a signed contract, and I really don't >care about fees. What you are talking about is an agreement between >two parties, the RIPE NCC and the address holder. Something like >this(*): > > PI holders must maintain an up to date e-mail address with the RIPE > NCC. If they do not, the PI space will be returned to the unused > pool. How do you know if it's up to date - or even listened to? Best way is a contract that says they pay a sum yearly. If the cheque doesn't arrive, or bounces, you take the space back. A small sum like ?100/year would suffice. -- Tim From frederic at placenet.org Tue Apr 8 16:40:40 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:40:40 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: References: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> <1207577340.14155.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FA375D.9040103@ukraine.su> <20080407182229.GA23506@borg.c-l-i.net> <47FA7A6B.405@ukraine.su> <20080408093852.GA8103@borg.c-l-i.net> <1207648734.6404.8.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <20080408135128.GA14594@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <1207665640.14633.52.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> > > PI holders must maintain an up to date e-mail address with the RIPE > > NCC. If they do not, the PI space will be returned to the unused > > pool. > > How do you know if it's up to date - or even listened to? Best way is a contract that says they pay a sum yearly. If the cheque doesn't arrive, or bounces, you take the space back. A small sum like ?100/year would suffice. > i will give you 10000 bucks and during 100 years it will not what your problem, what the block became. Frederic. > -- Tim > From s.steffann at computel.nl Tue Apr 8 17:01:07 2008 From: s.steffann at computel.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:01:07 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments(Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <1207665640.14633.52.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> References: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> <1207577340.14155.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FA375D.9040103@ukraine.su> <20080407182229.GA23506@borg.c-l-i.net> <47FA7A6B.405@ukraine.su> <20080408093852.GA8103@borg.c-l-i.net> <1207648734.6404.8.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <20080408135128.GA14594@borg.c-l-i.net> <1207665640.14633.52.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: Hi Frederic, >> > PI holders must maintain an up to date e-mail address with the RIPE >> > NCC. If they do not, the PI space will be returned to the unused >> > pool. >> >> How do you know if it's up to date - or even listened to? Best way is a >> contract that says they pay a sum yearly. If the cheque doesn't arrive, >> or >> bounces, you take the space back. A small sum like ?100/year would >> suffice. > > i will give you 10000 bucks and during 100 years it will not what your > problem, what the block became. It still remains a problem. This proposal is not about the money. It is about responsible stewardship of internet resources. The way provider independent resources are handled now it is impossible to follow what is happening to those resources. Resources that are not in use anymore are lost because there is no way to check this, while other organisations might need those resources. Policy proposal 2007-01 was introduced to solve this problem. With a contract between an LIR (or RIPE NCC) and the end user, we can follow the resource. We could check if it is still in use, if the usage still complies with the policies, etc. - Sander From frederic at placenet.org Tue Apr 8 17:16:14 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:16:14 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments(Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: References: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> <1207577340.14155.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FA375D.9040103@ukraine.su> <20080407182229.GA23506@borg.c-l-i.net> <47FA7A6B.405@ukraine.su> <20080408093852.GA8103@borg.c-l-i.net> <1207648734.6404.8.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <20080408135128.GA14594@borg.c-l-i.net> <1207665640.14633.52.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <1207667774.14633.59.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Le mardi 08 avril 2008 ? 17:01 +0200, Sander Steffann a ?crit : > Hi Frederic, > > >> > PI holders must maintain an up to date e-mail address with the RIPE > >> > NCC. If they do not, the PI space will be returned to the unused > >> > pool. > >> > >> How do you know if it's up to date - or even listened to? Best way is a > >> contract that says they pay a sum yearly. If the cheque doesn't arrive, > >> or > >> bounces, you take the space back. A small sum like ?100/year would > >> suffice. > > > > i will give you 10000 bucks and during 100 years it will not what your > > problem, what the block became. > > It still remains a problem. This proposal is not about the money. It is > about responsible stewardship of internet resources. The way provider > independent resources are handled now it is impossible to follow what is > happening to those resources. Resources that are not in use anymore are lost > because there is no way to check this, while other organisations might need > those resources. > > Policy proposal 2007-01 was introduced to solve this problem. With a > contract between an LIR (or RIPE NCC) and the end user, we can follow the > resource. We could check if it is still in use, if the usage still complies > with the policies, etc. > i do not talk of money specialy. i talk about MUST contract, i propose MAY contract. to find what become the ressource, i propose a procedure like domain. because today with PI-IPV4 , is it possible to do not have contract. this possibility is a little windows of freedom, we ask to not close it. bst regards. Frederic > - Sander > From Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk Tue Apr 8 17:09:36 2008 From: Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk (Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 16:09:36 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Message-ID: > Leo Vegoda > Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > > 08/04/08 13:29 > > To > > Frederic , Shane Kerr > > cc > > Max Tulyev , "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" > > > Subject > > Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct > Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) > > Hi Frederic, > > On 08/04/2008 03:58, "Frederic" wrote: > > [...] > > > why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI holder > > thru Database information. > > > > Dead PI is like Dead Domain name. > > This is a fairly good analogy. My understanding of domain names is that they > are normally delegated according to a contract with a registry or registrar. > If the contract ends the delegation is removed. > There is a thriving market in 'dead' domain names. Several of our registrars base their business models around buying them and reviving them. For this to work they need to have a contract with us, and they need to pay a fee per domain name. However, the leverage we have is that the contract on a domain name is time limited, with on option to renew. If they do not renew then we remove the domain name from DNS. There is then a time lag before the domain is released back into the market. In other words, we control service, so we can enforce the contract. The NCC does not have a similar lever. Regards, Ian Regards, Ian From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Tue Apr 8 17:19:37 2008 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:19:37 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments(Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: References: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> <1207577340.14155.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FA375D.9040103@ukraine.su> <20080407182229.GA23506@borg.c-l-i.net> <47FA7A6B.405@ukraine.su> <20080408093852.GA8103@borg.c-l-i.net> <1207648734.6404.8.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <20080408135128.GA14594@borg.c-l-i.net> <1207665640.14633.52.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <6672220B-F9AC-4722-847D-6EFAFFF3BAE2@ucd.ie> On 8 Apr 2008, at 16:01, Sander Steffann wrote: > It still remains a problem. This proposal is not about the money. > It is about responsible stewardship of internet resources. The way > provider independent resources are handled now it is impossible to > follow what is happening to those resources. Resources that are not > in use anymore are lost because there is no way to check this, > while other organisations might need those resources. > > Policy proposal 2007-01 was introduced to solve this problem. With > a contract between an LIR (or RIPE NCC) and the end user, we can > follow the resource. We could check if it is still in use, if the > usage still complies with the policies, etc. Absolutely. I'm in favour of a small fee because non-payment is the simplest trigger to use for garbage-collection. Any other assessment of whether the block is still in use as agreed is likely at some stage to have to be "explained", with some level of difficulty, in court or between lawyers. Non- payment is much more widely understood and accepted as a reason for discontinuation of service. [without any hat] /Niall -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Tue Apr 8 17:26:08 2008 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:26:08 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments(Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <1207667774.14633.59.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> References: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> <1207577340.14155.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FA375D.9040103@ukraine.su> <20080407182229.GA23506@borg.c-l-i.net> <47FA7A6B.405@ukraine.su> <20080408093852.GA8103@borg.c-l-i.net> <1207648734.6404.8.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <20080408135128.GA14594@borg.c-l-i.net> <1207665640.14633.52.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <1207667774.14633.59.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <251E12AA-C85B-4C43-B5D3-7D449470C601@ucd.ie> On 8 Apr 2008, at 16:16, Frederic wrote: > because today with PI-IPV4 , is it possible to do not have contract. > this possibility is a little windows of freedom, we ask to not > close it. s/little.*/garden gate, leading straight to the swamp./ /Niall -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jeroen at unfix.org Tue Apr 8 17:27:55 2008 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:27:55 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments(Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: References: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> <1207577340.14155.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FA375D.9040103@ukraine.su> <20080407182229.GA23506@borg.c-l-i.net> <47FA7A6B.405@ukraine.su> <20080408093852.GA8103@borg.c-l-i.net> <1207648734.6404.8.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <20080408135128.GA14594@borg.c-l-i.net> <1207665640.14633.52.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <47FB8EFB.3090101@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Sander Steffann wrote: [..] >> i will give you 10000 bucks and during 100 years it will not what your >> problem, what the block became. > > It still remains a problem. This proposal is not about the money. It is > about responsible stewardship of internet resources. The way provider > independent resources are handled now it is impossible to follow what is > happening to those resources. Resources that are not in use anymore are > lost because there is no way to check this, while other organisations > might need those resources. > > Policy proposal 2007-01 was introduced to solve this problem. With a > contract between an LIR (or RIPE NCC) and the end user, we can follow > the resource. We could check if it is still in use, if the usage still > complies with the policies, etc. All the resources RIR's provide though have amongst others the following two properties: a) no guarantee about the resources uniqueness b) no guarantee that the resource can be used everywhere And with this proposal another one comes along: c) when one has a resource, there is no way to 'block' one from using it even after no payment or voiding/expiry of contract. Thus even if there is a contract and some cash involved, the moment that the contract is not valid any more and/or the cash is not paid anymore, the resource can still be used, because of a). Domain Registries are really delegating, without that link from the TLD one doesn't have a domain, it simply doesn't function (unless one hijacks a rather large set of DNS servers around the world :) For the RIR's though, there is currently not a real way to actually enforce the contract or the payment, let alone that when the data is invalid, that one can enforce that. This is good in one way (the whole idea of the Internet) but bad in the way Then again, one can today already simply take a prefix and simply use it. It is at up to the ISP's who carry that prefix to accept it or not. There are a couple of proposals that might (might as when ISPs want to carry something they can and will do so) help enforce this a little bit but require full cooperation: - (S-)BGP(-S) - Route Objects - etc But as the first is nearly unused that doesn't work. The second one is used, but unfortunately not by the non-RIPE membership and it won't provide full lockdown. The only 'power' that a RIR has and can mostly enforce (unless an ISP hijacks a resource and forces/gets others to accept it) though is something they do on a daily basis: provide new resources. As such, when for a resource under this, or another, policy, the contract expired or the fees are not properly paid, but the resource is kept in use, the RIR could block any new allocations to requesters who do still allow the expired resource to exist and be used. Detection of which can be done fully automated with RIS and similar tools at thus virtually no additional cost. The RIR can then at least ask the requester to contact their neighboring ISP to stop using an expired resource. This is playing cop a bit though, which is something that the RIRs should avoid, but, in this case might be one of the few ways to resolve the issue where someone sets up a contract one year and then simply ignores it for the rest of their lives while keeping the use of the resource. The contract though is legal, thus it might be possible to also let the RIR go to court for these things. Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From frederic at placenet.org Tue Apr 8 17:29:22 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:29:22 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1207668562.21874.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Le mardi 08 avril 2008 ? 16:09 +0100, Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk a ?crit : > > Leo Vegoda > > Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > > > > 08/04/08 13:29 > > > > To > > > > Frederic , Shane Kerr > > > > cc > > > > Max Tulyev , "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" > > > > > > Subject > > > > Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct > > Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) > > > > Hi Frederic, > > > > On 08/04/2008 03:58, "Frederic" wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI > holder > > > thru Database information. > > > > > > Dead PI is like Dead Domain name. > > > > This is a fairly good analogy. My understanding of domain names is that > they > > are normally delegated according to a contract with a registry or > registrar. > > If the contract ends the delegation is removed. > > > There is a thriving market in 'dead' domain names. Several of our > registrars base their business models around buying them and reviving them. > For this to work they need to have a contract with us, and they need to pay > a fee per domain name. > > However, the leverage we have is that the contract on a domain name is time > limited, with on option to renew. it is not true for all domain. and the "not for all" is important. that why we do not support : contract for all RESSOURCE. let choice by change MUST by MAY. bst regards. Frederic > If they do not renew then we remove the > domain name from DNS. There is then a time lag before the domain is > released back into the market. In other words, we control service, so we > can enforce the contract. The NCC does not have a similar lever. > > Regards, > > Ian > > Regards, > > Ian > From Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk Tue Apr 8 17:55:08 2008 From: Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk (Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 16:55:08 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <1207668562.21874.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> References: <1207668562.21874.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net wrote on 08/04/2008 16:29:22: > Frederic > Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > > 08/04/08 16:29 > > To > > Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk > > cc > > address-policy-wg at ripe.net > > Subject > > Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct > Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) > > Le mardi 08 avril 2008 ? 16:09 +0100, Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk a > ?crit : > > > Leo Vegoda > > > Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > > > > > > 08/04/08 13:29 > > > > > > To > > > > > > Frederic , Shane Kerr > > > > > > cc > > > > > > Max Tulyev , "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" > > > > > > > > > Subject > > > > > > Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct > > > Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) > > > > > > Hi Frederic, > > > > > > On 08/04/2008 03:58, "Frederic" wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI > > holder > > > > thru Database information. > > > > > > > > Dead PI is like Dead Domain name. > > > > > > This is a fairly good analogy. My understanding of domain names is that > > they > > > are normally delegated according to a contract with a registry or > > registrar. > > > If the contract ends the delegation is removed. > > > > > There is a thriving market in 'dead' domain names. Several of our > > registrars base their business models around buying them and reviving them. > > For this to work they need to have a contract with us, and they need to pay > > a fee per domain name. > > > > However, the leverage we have is that the contract on a domain name is time > > limited, with on option to renew. > > > it is not true for all domain. and the "not for all" is important. > > that why we do not support : contract for all RESSOURCE. let choice by > change MUST by MAY. > > Can you provide a counter example? Ian From frederic at placenet.org Tue Apr 8 19:42:25 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (frederic at placenet.org) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:42:25 -0000 (UTC) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: References: <1207668562.21874.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <59893.77.207.75.196.1207676545.squirrel@www.placenet.org> > > > address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net wrote on 08/04/2008 16:29:22: > >> Frederic >> Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net >> >> 08/04/08 16:29 >> >> To >> >> Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk >> >> cc >> >> address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> >> Subject >> >> Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct >> Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) >> >> Le mardi 08 avril 2008 ? 16:09 +0100, Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk a >> ?crit : >> > > Leo Vegoda >> > > Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net >> > > >> > > 08/04/08 13:29 >> > > >> > > To >> > > >> > > Frederic , Shane Kerr > >> > > >> > > cc >> > > >> > > Max Tulyev , "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" >> > > >> > > >> > > Subject >> > > >> > > Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct >> > > Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) >> > > >> > > Hi Frederic, >> > > >> > > On 08/04/2008 03:58, "Frederic" wrote: >> > > >> > > [...] >> > > >> > > > why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI >> > holder >> > > > thru Database information. >> > > > >> > > > Dead PI is like Dead Domain name. >> > > >> > > This is a fairly good analogy. My understanding of domain names is > that >> > they >> > > are normally delegated according to a contract with a registry or >> > registrar. >> > > If the contract ends the delegation is removed. >> > > >> > There is a thriving market in 'dead' domain names. Several of our >> > registrars base their business models around buying them and reviving > them. >> > For this to work they need to have a contract with us, and they need >> to > pay >> > a fee per domain name. >> > >> > However, the leverage we have is that the contract on a domain name is > time >> > limited, with on option to renew. >> >> >> it is not true for all domain. and the "not for all" is important. >> >> that why we do not support : contract for all RESSOURCE. let choice by >> change MUST by MAY. >> >> > Can you provide a counter example? > counter exemple for ? domain ? .st .nf or .eu.org. all are free. Free because 1$ some time is huge. no contract because everybody is not hijacker and all idea may be possible. bst regards. Frederic > Ian > From jeroen at unfix.org Tue Apr 8 20:04:44 2008 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:04:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <59893.77.207.75.196.1207676545.squirrel@www.placenet.org> References: <1207668562.21874.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <59893.77.207.75.196.1207676545.squirrel@www.placenet.org> Message-ID: <47FBB3BC.1060401@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> frederic at placenet.org wrote: [..] > counter exemple for ? domain ? > > .st .nf or .eu.org. all are free. > > Free because 1$ some time is huge. no contract because everybody is not > hijacker and all idea may be possible. You might have noticed that eu.org is not a TLD. You can of course also get 'free' dyndns.org 'sub-domains' and a lot more funny ones. For all goes: there is no contract, thus they can, at any time, just delete "your" domain and you will have nothing to stand on. The primary reasons (afaik) that folks want PI is to be: - independence - be sure that they can keep the address space avoiding the need to change In your 'examples', you are not independent, as you rely on the service from those TLD's to a) work, b) remain free, c) remain available to you. Also you can't rely on it that those domains remain "yours", thus you will have to rename your whole domain when that happens. Unfortunately for you the Internet is not anymore that startup research network between a couple of schools. The Internet is commercial, and the Internet is global and has a lot of participants. To make sure that everybody is happy and can be kept happy, you will just have to sign a little contract and keep to it, and you will just have to pay a small fee for the maintenance. If you don't want either, then you will just have to use all the free alternatives, which don't provide you with the things you want. As for the whining about any fees at all, those fees are nothing compared to the hardware and transit costs you will have, especially when you will need to buy a really big new router when a lot of sites get PI, or do you expect all of that for free too? (if the answer is yes, then ask the people who sponsor those things to also sponsor the little bit of cash for the prefix) Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From frederic at placenet.org Wed Apr 9 09:23:26 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:23:26 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <47FBB3BC.1060401@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> References: <1207668562.21874.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <59893.77.207.75.196.1207676545.squirrel@www.placenet.org> <47FBB3BC.1060401@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: <1207725806.6541.6.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Le mardi 08 avril 2008 ? 20:04 +0200, Jeroen Massar a ?crit : > frederic at placenet.org wrote: > [..] > > counter exemple for ? domain ? > > > > .st .nf or .eu.org. all are free. > > > > Free because 1$ some time is huge. no contract because everybody is not > > hijacker and all idea may be possible. > > You might have noticed that eu.org is not a TLD. You can of course also > get 'free' dyndns.org 'sub-domains' and a lot more funny ones. > > For all goes: there is no contract, thus they can, at any time, just > delete "your" domain and you will have nothing to stand on. > > The primary reasons (afaik) that folks want PI is to be: > - independence > - be sure that they can keep the address space avoiding > the need to change > > In your 'examples', you are not independent, as you rely on the service > from those TLD's to a) work, b) remain free, c) remain available to you. > Also you can't rely on it that those domains remain "yours", thus you > will have to rename your whole domain when that happens. > You keep eu.org but you do not talk about .st and .nf. and eu.org was made because you do not have choice today with domain. and that why i do not want the same thing for IP. and like i said many time, is all the freedom to have other thing possible that the main stream. > > Unfortunately for you the Internet is not anymore that startup research > network between a couple of schools. The Internet is commercial, and the > Internet is global and has a lot of participants. To make sure that > everybody is happy and can be kept happy, you will just have to sign a > little contract and keep to it, and you will just have to pay a small > fee for the maintenance. If you don't want either, then you will just > have to use all the free alternatives, which don't provide you with the > things you want. > Today you have the possibility to do without contract. the 2007-1 say it's over ! All goes fine. > As for the whining about any fees at all, those fees are nothing > compared to the hardware and transit costs you will have, especially > when you will need to buy a really big new router when a lot of sites > get PI, or do you expect all of that for free too? (if the answer is > yes, then ask the people who sponsor those things to also sponsor the > little bit of cash for the prefix) > False. LIR FEES is huge for a non profit company with vulunteer. and hardware and place in the internet are today not expensive. And when that was expensive you had not money for only administartive purpose. Main stream of the internet is commercial but today you have the possibility to do not follow this main stream. tomorrow is not possible because you have contract. Internet still works and works with gentlement agreement, and anyway you can hijack youtube's PA with the LIR status.... bst regards. Frederic > Greets, > Jeroen > From frederic at placenet.org Wed Apr 9 11:16:45 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:16:45 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] proposal about 2007-1 Message-ID: <1207732605.6541.15.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> hi, i propose to change:This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC must be established before the End User receives Internet number resources by: This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC may be established before the End User receives Internet number resources. today, is not posible to etablish relationship with ripe. now with this modification of the 2007-1 that is possible but not an obligation. bst regards. Frederic CELLA From frederic at placenet.org Wed Apr 9 11:27:48 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:27:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-1 Message-ID: <1207733268.6541.19.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> we support this proposal and want extend a /64 for all identified inetnum holder like an ISP. ABOUT: General: The RIPE NCC understands that the Address Policy WG Chairs would require the full implementation of this proposal only after the outcome of Policy Proposal 2007-01, which generally discusses direct End User assignments. This would be the case even if Policy Proposal 2008-01 concludes first. our change of proposal about 2007-1, help to support 2008-1. bst regards. Fr?d?ric CELLA From nick at inex.ie Wed Apr 9 11:45:56 2008 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:45:56 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] proposal about 2007-1 In-Reply-To: <1207732605.6541.15.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> References: <1207732605.6541.15.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <47FC9054.5040908@inex.ie> Frederic, > i propose to change:This proposal states that a contractual relationship > between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC must be > established before the End User receives Internet number resources > > by: > > This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User > and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC may be established before the End > User receives Internet number resources. > > today, is not posible to etablish relationship with ripe. > now with this modification of the 2007-1 that is possible but not an > obligation. In short, no. In addition to the reasons listed in the justification section of 2007-01: - the current system does not work well from the point of view of responsible internet stewardship - depending on email communication as the only means of address management will promote resource hoarding once free ipv4 space runs out - maintaining correct and accurate contact information on address holders is troublesome and costs money - changing "must" to "may" means no change from the current position Your argument appears to be "I just don't want to have to pay for address space", and nothing more. This is neither a proper argument nor a sustainable position. As the proposer of this policy change, I don't believe that you have provided any substantial justification for your opinions. If you feel strongly about this, please feel free to either provide credible justification or else submit an alternative policy proposal. Nick Hilliard -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick at inex.ie From jeroen at unfix.org Wed Apr 9 12:00:03 2008 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:00:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <1207725806.6541.6.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> References: <1207668562.21874.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <59893.77.207.75.196.1207676545.squirrel@www.placenet.org> <47FBB3BC.1060401@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <1207725806.6541.6.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <47FC93A3.3030207@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Frederic wrote: [..] > You keep eu.org but you do not talk about .st and .nf. Actually I ignore eu.org completely, as it is just a subdomain and talked mostly about the rest. There are several, probably thousands, of such domains where you can get a subdomain for free. All without a requirement to pay or any contract, except their rules. Anyone remember ml.org? Indeed, they don't exist anymore either. http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=ml.org still has a small recording about this. > and eu.org was > made because you do not have choice today with domain. and that why i do > not want the same thing for IP. As you are so persistent in your analogy and don't seem to get the point where your analogy is wrong, lets try another way: There is a *FREE* way for you to get an IPv6 block, just get a tunnel from one of the several IPv6 Tunnel Brokers out there. They will provide you, for free, one or even multiple /48's to your site. You are free to use them, though under the conditions they set, just like your 'eu.org' and 'nf' 'st' etc domains. They also take care of the routing, the transit and everything, all for free. The trick is, you can't/should not announce that /48 into BGP though, as that is their conditions. Also you do not have any rights whatsoever for that /48, it can go any time you want. Because of them handling the routing, and them deciding you can keep the domain^Wsubnet, you are dependent, just like DNS, on them and their service to keep on existing and providing it to you. If you want something for free, the conditions are also free, anything can happen. If you have a contract though, that contract defines what can happen. > and like i said many time, is all the freedom to have other thing > possible that the main stream. The above example 'preserves' your freedom, though it locks you in, just like those TLD's and eu.org to their rules. You are btw absolutely not independent with those domains, you are fully dependent on what they decide to do with their domain and if they even keep it running or allow you to use it. There is no contact thus no guarantees, if you have a contract you have something to come back at. Maybe you should start to understand that IP are not domain names. >> As for the whining about any fees at all, those fees are nothing >> compared to the hardware and transit costs you will have, especially >> when you will need to buy a really big new router when a lot of sites >> get PI, or do you expect all of that for free too? (if the answer is >> yes, then ask the people who sponsor those things to also sponsor the >> little bit of cash for the prefix) >> > > False. LIR FEES is huge for a non profit company with vulunteer. Get better sponsors for your project, or just fit in with what everybody else does. If your project is not that important to get good enough sponsors you do not need to have PI either. > and > hardware and place in the internet are today not expensive. And when > that was expensive you had not money for only administartive purpose. As mentioned, if/when routing tables explode, your cheap hardware won't work anymore as it all has to be replaced. You will the first one to be then cut off that nice Internet. Does PI help then? You still won't have the money to actually connect to it and actually use it. What exactly are the requirements for which you require PI anyway? As you don't seem to be able to understand the difference between domain names and IP addresses, maybe you are just misinformed and you should be consulted so that you understand the other possibilities that you have for solving your problem. > Main stream of the internet is commercial but today you have the > possibility to do not follow this main stream. > > tomorrow is not possible because you have contract. That is called evolution. 2000 years ago you could have occupied the US yourself and made yourself president. Now everything is owned by somebody else. Change happens. Either you go along, or you stick to your little rock. > Internet still works and works with gentlement agreement, and anyway you > can hijack youtube's PA with the LIR status.... I would say: go for it. It doesn't take long for you to disappear from the Internet then. A lot of people don't like other people messing with their networks. Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From frederic at placenet.org Wed Apr 9 12:03:20 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:03:20 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] proposal about 2007-1 In-Reply-To: <47FC9054.5040908@inex.ie> References: <1207732605.6541.15.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FC9054.5040908@inex.ie> Message-ID: <1207735400.6541.36.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> > > - changing "must" to "may" means no change from the current position > that change all, because the holder can have choice. if you don't have contract or break it for any reason : all your internet ressource are keep back. It's OK for PA : is it the main stream of the internet. but we do not want for PI. > Your argument appears to be "I just don't want to have to pay for address > space", and nothing more. This is neither a proper argument nor a > sustainable position. > No i do not say i do not want PAY : this is WRONG. i say we want to have choice for some internet ressource. > As the proposer of this policy change, I don't believe that you have > provided any substantial justification for your opinions. > > If you feel strongly about this, please feel free to either provide > credible justification or else submit an alternative policy proposal. > > we think that credible to fight for a little space of freedom and it is really a question of freedom. bst regards Frederic > Nick Hilliard From berni at birkenwald.de Wed Apr 9 12:10:06 2008 From: berni at birkenwald.de (Bernhard Schmidt) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:10:06 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] proposal about 2007-1 In-Reply-To: <1207735400.6541.36.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> References: <1207732605.6541.15.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FC9054.5040908@inex.ie> <1207735400.6541.36.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <47FC95FE.9000802@birkenwald.de> Frederic wrote: >> Your argument appears to be "I just don't want to have to pay for address >> space", and nothing more. This is neither a proper argument nor a >> sustainable position. > No i do not say i do not want PAY : this is WRONG. > i say we want to have choice for some internet ressource. You want the people to choose between paying and not paying? PA space assigned to you by a LIR will remain free of charge by the way. Anyway, for the record, I support 2007-01 in the current form. I strongly oppose any attempt to change it to be optional. In fact, if there was any way to require 2007-01 for old PI and ERX space I would be all in favour. Bernhard From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Apr 9 12:15:58 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:15:58 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <1207725806.6541.6.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> References: <1207668562.21874.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <59893.77.207.75.196.1207676545.squirrel@www.placenet.org> <47FBB3BC.1060401@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <1207725806.6541.6.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: > > > .st .nf or .eu.org. all are free. > You keep eu.org but you do not talk about .st and .nf. In fact, .st and .nf are not free. Check http://www.nic.st and https://secure.nf/ if you don't believe me. At the .nf registry you have to do a name search and click "Register" to see the prices. Anything that simplifies the chain of contractual relationships, like 2007-01, is a good policy. Since it is optional, it means that end users who already contract for other services from an LIR, can continue to maintain their IP addressing relationship with the LIR. But there are other end users with IP addresses who do not have a need for any other services from an LIR. It does not make sense to force them to contract with an LIR for only this one service, which is NEVER the core business of the LIR. That's why 2007-01 is a good proposal since it allows these end users to contract directly with RIPE where IP addressing *IS* the core business. --Michael Dillon From frederic at placenet.org Wed Apr 9 12:15:19 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:15:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <47FC93A3.3030207@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> References: <1207668562.21874.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <59893.77.207.75.196.1207676545.squirrel@www.placenet.org> <47FBB3BC.1060401@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <1207725806.6541.6.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FC93A3.3030207@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: <1207736119.6541.45.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> > > > Internet still works and works with gentlement agreement, and anyway you > > can hijack youtube's PA with the LIR status.... > > I would say: go for it. > > It doesn't take long for you to disappear from the Internet then. A lot > of people don't like other people messing with their networks. > yes of course, so contract change nothing for a correct relationship. gentleman agreement works fine. i talk about domain for procedure to keep in touch with the holder. and after about why some domain are free (no contract and no fees), the must important is free to USE (because no contract). of course IP are not domain. i explain that is interesting to have the possiblity to have relationship with ripe when your are an internet ressource holder without to be be a LIR. but i would have the choice and let the choice to other. The contract of ripe will be interesting because you will have choice to say yes or no. if you need PI and after you grow, you can become LIR and change you PI with PA and like this have a contract with RIPE. so please forget the part : money. thing about the possibility to have choice do not restrict all internet ressource to an unique contract. bst regards. Frederic > Greets, > Jeroen > From frederic at placenet.org Wed Apr 9 12:20:48 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:20:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] proposal about 2007-1 In-Reply-To: <47FC95FE.9000802@birkenwald.de> References: <1207732605.6541.15.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FC9054.5040908@inex.ie> <1207735400.6541.36.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FC95FE.9000802@birkenwald.de> Message-ID: <1207736448.6541.51.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Le mercredi 09 avril 2008 ? 12:10 +0200, Bernhard Schmidt a ?crit : > Frederic wrote: > > >> Your argument appears to be "I just don't want to have to pay for address > >> space", and nothing more. This is neither a proper argument nor a > >> sustainable position. > > No i do not say i do not want PAY : this is WRONG. > > i say we want to have choice for some internet ressource. > > You want the people to choose between paying and not paying? no, to have contract or not contract, it is not the same. > PA space > assigned to you by a LIR will remain free of charge by the way. > yes i know. > Anyway, for the record, I support 2007-01 in the current form. I > strongly oppose any attempt to change it to be optional. In fact, if > there was any way to require 2007-01 for old PI and ERX space I would be > all in favour. > that's will be the end of a time... i beleive is dangerous. nothing justify this today. bst regards. Frederic > Bernhard From jeroen at unfix.org Wed Apr 9 13:24:37 2008 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:24:37 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <1207736119.6541.45.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> References: <1207668562.21874.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <59893.77.207.75.196.1207676545.squirrel@www.placenet.org> <47FBB3BC.1060401@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <1207725806.6541.6.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FC93A3.3030207@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <1207736119.6541.45.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <47FCA775.1060204@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Frederic wrote: >>> Internet still works and works with gentlement agreement, and anyway you >>> can hijack youtube's PA with the LIR status.... >> I would say: go for it. >> >> It doesn't take long for you to disappear from the Internet then. A lot >> of people don't like other people messing with their networks. >> > > yes of course, so contract change nothing for a correct relationship. > gentleman agreement works fine. With a contract somebody can sue you, with a "gentlemans agreement" one can't. What is your opposition to contracts at all? You will have to set up several contracts anyway already: - Sponsors - Connectivity provider (L2) - Connectivity provider (L3) - Datacenter, or separate: Power, Cooling etc - Security and a lot more. You do set up those, but you don't want them for a bit of address space. Odd. What do you have to worry about, that a contract doesn't suit you? > i talk about domain for procedure to keep in touch with the holder. > > and after about why some domain are free (no contract and no fees), the > must important is free to USE (because no contract). As mentioned, when you get free stuff, it is not you who decided on how to use it. > of course IP are not domain. > > i explain that is interesting to have the possiblity to have > relationship with ripe when your are an internet ressource holder > without to be be a LIR. And to do that you will need to sign a contract with RIPE. You will be liable and responsible for the address block that you might receive. This all under the conditions set forth by the community. > but i would have the choice and let the choice to other. The contract of > ripe will be interesting because you will have choice to say yes or no. You have a simple two way choice: - you sign a contract and get your PI - you don't sign a contract and you don't. > if you need PI and after you grow, you can become LIR and change you PI > with PA and like this have a contract with RIPE. PI can't be converted to PA. PI is for end-sites. PA is for ISP's who provide aggregated connectivity to end-sites. What where your requirements again for all of this? Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From president at ukraine.su Wed Apr 9 14:22:49 2008 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:22:49 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <58895.77.207.75.196.1207584054.squirrel@www.placenet.org> References: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> <1207577340.14155.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FA3749.4010509@ukraine.su> <58895.77.207.75.196.1207584054.squirrel@www.placenet.org> Message-ID: <47FCB519.7080600@ukraine.su> Sure, dealing with domains is like IP networks. But unlike domains, PI IP networks is not billed yearly (yet). May be we should return back old charging scheme when PI is billed yearly to LIRs? This will enforce return unused space, make contracts between LIRs and end-users, and so on just *automagically* ;) frederic at placenet.org wrote: >> Frederic, >> >> current system is NOT working well. >> >> Just because we can't trace dead companies and dead assignments and >> reuse it. In 1-2 years all unused space will be assigned. >> > > I suppose all (dead-compagny) block has an ripe datatabse record ? > > can use the same way that a drop domain name ? > > >> But if even that policy will be implemented - how we can enforce it? How >> can we revoke that space if need? >> > > I think that domain name way is interesting to implement ? > > before to be a contractual document, is a moral contract. > > bst regards. > Frederic > >> Frederic wrote: >>> We support if: >>> No Fees is required for this ?contractual relationship. >>> and this contractual relation ship do not exist between and user and one >>> LIR. >>> >>> else >>> we do not support, today system works well. >> >> -- >> WBR, >> Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) >> > > -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From frederic at placenet.org Wed Apr 9 14:23:03 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:23:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <47FCA775.1060204@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> References: <1207668562.21874.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <59893.77.207.75.196.1207676545.squirrel@www.placenet.org> <47FBB3BC.1060401@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <1207725806.6541.6.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FC93A3.3030207@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <1207736119.6541.45.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FCA775.1060204@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: <1207743783.6541.72.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> > > You have a simple two way choice: > - you sign a contract and get your PI > - you don't sign a contract and you don't. > Today is not true. the 2007-1 change what is possible today. Today if i justify to receive a PI, i have it without any Contractual Obligation. i add information in ripe database and update it. > > > if you need PI and after you grow, you can become LIR and change you PI > > with PA and like this have a contract with RIPE. > > PI can't be converted to PA. PI is for end-sites. PA is for ISP's who > provide aggregated connectivity to end-sites. > and PI may be a step before PA... > > What where your requirements again for all of this? > the problem is to put a new restriction. the 2007-1 say: NOW when you want any internet ressource you MUST be contract with the , agree with the ripe etc... you can not imagine ALL possibility and you must not say now is like this and no way for the other. we would like let a choice, yes a little choice for a little window... we beleive that a step : MAY be established before MUST Be established, let ripe to proposal best contract to interest organisation that today has no contract for their own reason... (politacal, technic....what ever i do not know. but i not judge to say if it is good or bad, or it must be like this than like that.) bst regards. Frederic > Greets, > Jeroen > > From frederic at placenet.org Wed Apr 9 14:30:24 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:30:24 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <47FCB519.7080600@ukraine.su> References: <20080407132854.091E42F583@herring.ripe.net> <1207577340.14155.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FA3749.4010509@ukraine.su> <58895.77.207.75.196.1207584054.squirrel@www.placenet.org> <47FCB519.7080600@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <1207744224.23249.2.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Le mercredi 09 avril 2008 ? 15:22 +0300, Max Tulyev a ?crit : > Sure, dealing with domains is like IP networks. > > But unlike domains, PI IP networks is not billed yearly (yet). > > May be we should return back old charging scheme when PI is billed > yearly to LIRs? This will enforce return unused space, make contracts > between LIRs and end-users, and so on just *automagically* ;) > yes, all internet ressource with no EXECPTION will be bill and like this somebody grasp european court for monopolistik position... ;) > frederic at placenet.org wrote: > >> Frederic, > >> > >> current system is NOT working well. > >> > >> Just because we can't trace dead companies and dead assignments and > >> reuse it. In 1-2 years all unused space will be assigned. > >> > > > > I suppose all (dead-compagny) block has an ripe datatabse record ? > > > > can use the same way that a drop domain name ? > > > > > >> But if even that policy will be implemented - how we can enforce it? How > >> can we revoke that space if need? > >> > > > > I think that domain name way is interesting to implement ? > > > > before to be a contractual document, is a moral contract. > > > > bst regards. > > Frederic > > > >> Frederic wrote: > >>> We support if: > >>> No Fees is required for this ?contractual relationship. > >>> and this contractual relation ship do not exist between and user and one > >>> LIR. > >>> > >>> else > >>> we do not support, today system works well. > >> > >> -- > >> WBR, > >> Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) > >> > > > > > > From leo.vegoda at icann.org Wed Apr 9 14:53:49 2008 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 05:53:49 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <1207743783.6541.72.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: On 09/04/2008 06:23, "Frederic" wrote: [...] > Today if i justify to receive a PI, i have it without any Contractual > Obligation. Can you please explain why you are concerned about contractual obligations? The current system is slightly ambiguous and it could be argued that this places registrants in a risky situation. The RIPE NCC could act capriciously, or make a mistake, and revoke an assignment. The (now ex) registrant would be at a disadvantage when they sought redress. I personally think the scenario described above is very unlikely but nonetheless, it is a possibility. In my opinion, introducing contracts is as much about protecting the registrant as it is about protecting the RIPE NCC and the community of network operators. Regards, Leo Vegoda From s.steffann at computel.nl Wed Apr 9 17:12:46 2008 From: s.steffann at computel.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 17:12:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <47FCA775.1060204@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> References: <1207668562.21874.3.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <59893.77.207.75.196.1207676545.squirrel@www.placenet.org> <47FBB3BC.1060401@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <1207725806.6541.6.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FC93A3.3030207@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <1207736119.6541.45.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FCA775.1060204@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: Hi, Op 9 apr 2008, om 13:24 heeft Jeroen Massar het volgende geschreven: >> of course IP are not domain. >> i explain that is interesting to have the possiblity to have >> relationship with ripe when your are an internet ressource holder >> without to be be a LIR. > > And to do that you will need to sign a contract with RIPE. Important note: it is preferred that you have a contract with an LIR for your PI space. If you can't or won't do that, you can have a contract with RIPE NCC directly. The intention is to do as much as possible throught the existing LIR structure. Because it is provider independent, switching between LIRs is ofcourse not a problem. It is not the intention to force everyone to have a contract directly with the RIPE NCC. As Axel pointed out in the last RIPE meeting, this would lead to an unwanted situation. There is still freedom for the end user in choosing the LIR to do business with. Sander Steffann From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Thu Apr 10 10:42:15 2008 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:42:15 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] proposal about 2007-1 In-Reply-To: <1207735400.6541.36.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> References: <1207732605.6541.15.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FC9054.5040908@inex.ie> <1207735400.6541.36.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <5DA722D5-5D0B-4348-BCFA-D4DE57E51B29@ucd.ie> On 9 Apr 2008, at 11:03, Frederic wrote: > we think that credible to fight for a little space of freedom and > it is > really a question of freedom. Think what you like. Until you offer a justification, no-one else is likely to agree with you. Freedom without responsibility just isn't credible. /Niall -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From frederic at placenet.org Thu Apr 10 12:01:15 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:01:15 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] proposal about 2007-1 In-Reply-To: <5DA722D5-5D0B-4348-BCFA-D4DE57E51B29@ucd.ie> References: <1207732605.6541.15.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FC9054.5040908@inex.ie> <1207735400.6541.36.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <5DA722D5-5D0B-4348-BCFA-D4DE57E51B29@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <1207821675.16766.28.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Le jeudi 10 avril 2008 ? 09:42 +0100, Niall O'Reilly a ?crit : > On 9 Apr 2008, at 11:03, Frederic wrote: > > we think that credible to fight for a little space of freedom and > > it is > > really a question of freedom. > > > Think what you like. Until you offer a justification, no-one else > is likely to agree with you. Freedom without responsibility just > isn't credible. > > /Niall > it's to easy to have this conclusion and it is false (i m not here to talk philosophy). but i think the probleme is really politic. the 2007-1 is the kind of resolution that can change a lot of thing. And you come from a situation that works and you want solve only a problem of a technical nature by a legal contract. Today (before 2007-1) you may have AS and PI for free (no fee, no contract) and people who use these ressource are responsible : they update database, the use bgp properly and some of them, if they grow and then become LIR , drop PI ,get PA. the problem of internet ressource not used and not updated is only procedural. bst regards. Fr?d?ric From gert at space.net Thu Apr 10 13:40:39 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:40:39 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] proposal about 2007-1 In-Reply-To: <1207821675.16766.28.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> References: <1207732605.6541.15.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FC9054.5040908@inex.ie> <1207735400.6541.36.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <5DA722D5-5D0B-4348-BCFA-D4DE57E51B29@ucd.ie> <1207821675.16766.28.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <20080410114039.GG11038@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:01:15PM +0200, Frederic wrote: > the 2007-1 is the kind of resolution that can change a lot of thing. Well, this is the intention. We currently have system that is fairly imbalanced regarding costs, freedom and responsibility between "PA" and "PI" space. This leads to various problems (that I'm not going to iterate, see the mailing list archives for all the discussions about it), and thus we have decided to re-gain the balance. > And you come from a situation that works and you want solve only a > problem of a technical nature by a legal contract. The current situation does *not* work - and things like "Address Space Hijacking" (going to a provider, claiming "this is my network!") *can* be fixed with legal contracts, plus resource certification. Resource certification is a must to keep Internet routing (half-way) secure in the coming decades - and without a reasonable legal basis, you can forget about resource certification. [..] > the problem of internet ressource not used and not updated is only > procedural. And without a contractual basis with the resource holder, you have no lever to fix the procedures for people that do not want to cooperate. Nobody has a problem with resource holders that *do* cooperate - but we need to fix the rest, and you can't get that with a voluntary contract (because people that do not want to cooperate will not enter a contract if they don't need to). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From Tero.Toikkanen at nebula.fi Thu Apr 10 13:35:33 2008 From: Tero.Toikkanen at nebula.fi (Tero Toikkanen) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:35:33 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] proposal about 2007-1 In-Reply-To: <1207821675.16766.28.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> References: <1207732605.6541.15.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FC9054.5040908@inex.ie> <1207735400.6541.36.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <5DA722D5-5D0B-4348-BCFA-D4DE57E51B29@ucd.ie> <1207821675.16766.28.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <938AC6786A9CE64EA17214D592E90605262CE8D8@exc01.office.nbl.fi> > Today (before 2007-1) you may have AS and PI for free (no fee, no > contract) and people who use these ressource are responsible : they > update database, the use bgp properly and some of them, if they grow and > then become LIR , drop PI ,get PA. Wrong again. The main reason why this policy has been proposed, is that the people using these resources are NOT responsible. Also, the policy does not outline the form of the contract required. As far as I understand, LIRs are pretty much free to have the kind of a contract they choose with the end user. With the current proposal it's even possible to have a contract that doesn't even require any payments. I feel that the spirit of this proposal is to put in writing the agreement that is already in place, i.e. "I agree to follow the policies". Therefore I feel that Frederic is fighting for the right to violate the policies. I support this proposal too. We need clearer guidelines to work with our present and future PI customers. Best regards, -- Tero Toikkanen Nebula Oy From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Apr 10 14:45:13 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:45:13 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] proposal about 2007-1 In-Reply-To: <938AC6786A9CE64EA17214D592E90605262CE8D8@exc01.office.nbl.fi> References: <1207732605.6541.15.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <47FC9054.5040908@inex.ie> <1207735400.6541.36.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <5DA722D5-5D0B-4348-BCFA-D4DE57E51B29@ucd.ie> <1207821675.16766.28.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <938AC6786A9CE64EA17214D592E90605262CE8D8@exc01.office.nbl.fi> Message-ID: > Also, the policy does not outline the form of the contract > required. As far as I understand, LIRs are pretty much free > to have the kind of a contract they choose with the end user. > With the current proposal it's even possible to have a > contract that doesn't even require any payments. I expect that most LIRs don't really know what to put in a contract for PI address applicants. Once we implement this policy proposal, the RIPE contract for PI applicants will become a model for LIRs to use for their own PI applicants. I don't expect LIRs to charge their customers anything for signing a PI contract so I agree that it is likely that existing PI users will not face any additional fees as long as they are buying some kind of network service from their LIR. --Michael Dillon From gert at space.net Tue Apr 15 11:48:49 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:48:49 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Agenda suggestions for RIPE56? Message-ID: <20080415094849.GQ11038@Space.Net> Hi APWG folks, we're currently working on a draft agenda for the upcoming RIPE meeting in Berlin, which I'll send in a few days. The "usual" stuff will be there of course (discussion of all open policy proposals, and time generic policy discussions). If there is anything special you want to see on the Agenda, please let me know, so I can put it in. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From gert at space.net Fri Apr 18 10:22:13 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:22:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Agenda for RIPE 56 - 1st draft Message-ID: <20080418082213.GY11038@Space.Net> Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the agenda for the RIPE address policy WG meeting at the upcoming RIPE meeting in Berlin. The APWG meeting will take place Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 and Thursday, 09:00-10:30. If there is anything else you want to see on the agenda, please let me/us know! In the plenary section on Tuesday morning, we will have a presentation from Filiz Yilmaz on ongoing policy work in other regions, so we know what "they" are working on, and can try to learn from it. (Thanks!) The exact time lines depend a bit on the outcome of the policy proposals currently (and soon to be) in "last call". regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ----------------------- snip ---------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 A. Administrative Matters 5 min (selecting a scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. Overview over concluded protocols 10 min B.1 2007-07 - End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs withdrawn, replaced by 2008-03 B.2 2007-06 - Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 ... withdrawn, replaced by 2008-03 B.3 2005-08 - Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment an Utilisatio ... (change of /48 to "LIR's choice", /56, and HD-Ratio) accepted B.4 2007-03 - IPv4 Countdown Policy withdrawn, replaced by 2007-06/2007-07, replaced by 2008-03 B.5 2007-04 - IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs accepted in RIPE region (short feedback from ICANN/AC on current global status) C. New Proposals since RIPE 55, just presentation, no discussion yet 15 min C.1 2008-01 - Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder C.2 2008-02 - Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR C.3 2008-03 - Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space (IPv4 countdown policy, revisited) [C.4 2008-* - if anything else appears in the meantime] D. "Contracts and Certification session" D.1 2007-01 - wrap up, next steps, comments from the NCC board D.2 report from the Certification Authority (CA) TF - update on operational status [Nigel Titley] 15min - life certification demo 20min - discussion: proposal for initial certifications 10min D.3 new policy proposal from the CA TF, based on discussion Thursday, 09:00-11:30 E. Restart PI discussions (if we have consensus on 2007-01) E.1 2006-01 - Provider Independent IPv6 Assignment for End User Organizations E.2 2006-05 - PI Assignment Size E.3 2008-01 - Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder F. "End of IPv4" session - generic discussion on how to proceed F.1 2007-08 - Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources ("The Market" proposal) F.3 2007-09 - Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool (Tony Hain's proposal) F.3 2008-03 - Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 ... (/8 reservations to RIRs) Z. AOB -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Apr 24 12:50:11 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:50:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Does any kind of IPv4 transfer policy make sense Message-ID: I've been thinking a lot about the various proposals for new IPv4 transfer policies, many of which seem to want to create a market for IPv4 address blocks. In a recent discussion, someone suggested that there are two things that RIRs can and should do, in order to mitigate the effects of IPv4 exhaustion. 1. Reclaim unused allocations 2. Allow IPv4 address block transfers In most of the discussions about IPv4 exhaustion, these two actions are treated as separate activities. The first is an extension of what the RIRs and IANA have already been doing for many years. And the second is a wonderful new idea that will let organizations buy IPv4 addresses when RIPE runs out. But if you look closely and what "transfer" means, it becomes complex, confusing, and very unclear. In my opinion, is transfer is not separate from reclamation. In fact it *IS* reclamation. Instead of RIPE looking for unused allocations, it is LIRs looking for unused assignments. What happens after the unused addresses are identified is really not as important as the fact that no reclamation/transfer can happen until unused addresses are found. How likely is it that we will find unused address blocks at a time when the fresh supply of IPv4 addresses has run out? The RIRs have always tried to have transparent processes surrounding IP addressing. That's why we have the RIPE database which publishes a directory of who uses any particular IP address range. But how accurate is it. How many of these IP addresses are really in use? As long as we assume that the RIPE database is basically accurate, and that a higher percentage of all IPv4 addresses will be in a "used" state when we reach IPv4 exhaustion, this implies that there will be very few IP address blocks available to be transferred. And if that is true, this implies that the price per address block (if selling is allowed) will be very high, and rise over time as the unused addresses in the RIPE database become more scarce. Those prices could very well rise to such a high level that it is cheaper to simply buy out smaller companies and disconnect less profitable customers in order to get access to their address blocks. I feel that we need to pay more attention to analysing what addresses are really in use (used in source/destination headers of IP packets on the Internet) and to providing support and education to LIRs so that they can better audit their own allocations. --Michael Dillon From Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk Thu Apr 24 13:09:11 2008 From: Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk (Ian.Meikle at nominet.org.uk) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:09:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Does any kind of IPv4 transfer policy make sense In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net wrote on 24/04/2008 11:50:11: > > Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > > 24/04/08 11:50 > > To > > > > cc > > Subject > > [address-policy-wg] Does any kind of IPv4 transfer policy make sense > > > I've been thinking a lot about the various proposals for new IPv4 > transfer policies, many of which seem to want to create a market for > IPv4 address blocks. In a recent discussion, someone suggested that > there are two things that RIRs can and should do, in order to mitigate > the effects of IPv4 exhaustion. > > 1. Reclaim unused allocations > 2. Allow IPv4 address block transfers > > In most of the discussions about IPv4 exhaustion, these two actions are > treated as separate activities. The first is an extension of what the > RIRs and IANA have already been doing for many years. And the second is > a wonderful new idea that will let organizations buy IPv4 addresses when > RIPE runs out. > > But if you look closely and what "transfer" means, it becomes complex, > confusing, and very unclear. In my opinion, is transfer is not separate > from reclamation. In fact it *IS* reclamation. Instead of RIPE looking > for unused allocations, it is LIRs looking for unused assignments. What > happens after the unused addresses are identified is really not as > important as the fact that no reclamation/transfer can happen until > unused addresses are found. How likely is it that we will find unused > address blocks at a time when the fresh supply of IPv4 addresses has run > out? > I think there is a difference in the mechanism and levers available. The RIRs can pressurise, cajole, even threaten organisations to retrieve allocations for re-use. The LIRs could, if a market was allowed, offer financial incentives. If the market is allowed then those organisations holding large, unused allocations may feel it is in their best interest to resist RIR pressure in the hope of making a hefty profit. > The RIRs have always tried to have transparent processes surrounding IP > addressing. That's why we have the RIPE database which publishes a > directory of who uses any particular IP address range. But how accurate > is it. How many of these IP addresses are really in use? > > As long as we assume that the RIPE database is basically accurate, and > that a higher percentage of all IPv4 addresses will be in a "used" state > when we reach IPv4 exhaustion, this implies that there will be very few > IP address blocks available to be transferred. And if that is true, this > implies that the price per address block (if selling is allowed) will be > very high, and rise over time as the unused addresses in the RIPE > database become more scarce. Those prices could very well rise to such a > high level that it is cheaper to simply buy out smaller companies and > disconnect less profitable customers in order to get access to their > address blocks. > > I feel that we need to pay more attention to analysing what addresses > are really in use (used in source/destination headers of IP packets on > the Internet) and to providing support and education to LIRs so that > they can better audit their own allocations. > I certainly agree that we need a better picture of how IP allocations are used, and tools such as RIS exist for this. Are you suggesting the RIRs should take more of a coordinating/policing role? Ian From gert at space.net Fri Apr 25 11:19:17 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:19:17 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE 55: APWG minutes (draft) Message-ID: <20080425091917.GE11038@Space.Net> Hi APWG readers, there seems to have been a slight coordination problem regarding the posting of the APWG minutes to the mailing list - sorry for that, it seems everyone was assuming "it has already been done", but checking my archives, I can't find any trace of it. Anyway - here are the (draft) minutes from the last APWG meeting at RIPE55 in Amsterdam. Please let us know about everything that's not correct, so that I can declare the minutes as final in Berlin. (And a big thanks to the RIPE NCC folks for creating these truly amazing minutes!) Gert Doering APWG Chair ----- Forwarded message from Susannah Gray ----- Minutes from RIPE 55 RIPE Meeting: 55 Working Group: Address Policy Status: Draft Revision Number: 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 24th October 2007 11-12:30 Chair: Gert Doering Minutes: Scott Donald (RIPE NCC) Jabber Scribe: Laura Cobley (RIPE NCC) ----- 1. Administrative Matters * Welcome * Select a scribe - Scott Donald (RIPE NCC) * Finalise agenda * Minutes from RIPE 54 were approved http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r54-minutes.html * Co-chair changes Andrea Borgato stepped down as co-chair of this working group. Gert Doering and Sander Steffann remain as the two co-chairs. Speak to one of the co-chairs if you are interested in becoming a co-chair. ----- 2. Overview of Concluded Policy Proposals Proposal 2006-02 "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" - was accepted and implemented Proposal 2006-04 "Contact E-Mail Address Requirements" - was withdrawn Proposal 2006-06 "IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period" - was accepted and implemented Proposal 2006-07 "First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size" - was accepted and implemented Proposal 2007-02 "Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy" - was withdrawn Proposal 2007-03 "IPv4 Countdown Policy" - was withdrawn Proposal 2007-04 "IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs" - was accepted by RIPE, and is awaiting other RIRs acceptance ----- 3. Generic Discussion on PI Session Presentation: Feedback from the RIPE NCC Executive Board Regarding Proposal 2007-01 - Axel Pawlik (RIPE NCC) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/pawlik-2007-01.pdf There were no questions Presentation: Proposal 2007-01 "What do we do next?" - Nick Hilliard (INEX) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/hilliard-2007-01.pdf Gert Doering: commented yearly price of a PI assignment could be 100-300 Euros per year. More than that and the RIPE NCC would make a surplus. The Board would decide the cost. Wilfrid Woeber (ACONET): said that Axel gave some alternative proposals but asked if this proposal was talked about/agreed by the Board? Axel Pawlik (RIPE NCC): said this proposal would make things easier for us. It puts some responsibility on members to help maintain the link with the PI holders. He thought the board would be more positive about this than the previous suggestions. The general meeting, perhaps in May, can discuss changes to the charging scheme. Wilfrid Woeber: asked from the data privacy point of view, what would happen if an end user asks for his information to be removed. From this proposal the resources would eventually be reclaimed. We would need to think about solutions to that. Nick Hilliard: said the RIPE NCC may be breaking data privacy laws for NOT maintaining accurate information on the RIPE database at the moment. Daniel Karrenberg (RIPE NCC): thanked Nick for trying to fix a problem that other people saw, and to put things right again. We tried to encourage PA and not PI in the past (since RIPE 127) but somehow PI became free of charge. So we need to correct this situation. We need to do a lot of clearing up of the old data. Todd Underwood (renesys/babbledog): said that with the DNS system if you stop paying your domain name stops resolving. But with Whois information, nothing would happen if you stopped paying and your details were removed. Nick Hilliard: said RIPE are not the police, they are clearing house and numbers registry. RIPE guarantees uniqueness of the internet resources it issues. If someone hijacks your IP space you need to take it up with the ISP and solve it yourself. Todd Underwood: said the only thing RIPE can do with an expired registration is give it to someone else, or leave it unused in this proposal. So the analogy with the DNS system is flawed. Ruedi Volk (Deutsche Telekom): said clearing up the Whois would also clean out old route objects which are referencing the IP space. Nick Hilliard: said if you stop paying you will lose the entitlement to use it. So you would lose the unique access to this space. Leo Vegoda (IANA): Supported the proposal and wanted implementation speeded up as there are thousands of entries to contact and we want to encourage light regulation of the industry (not heavy regulation). Nick Hilliard: said if consensus is reached we can start quickly. The next opportunity to implement it is May 2008 due to the budgetary impact. Leo Vegoda: agreed it must be approved by the RIPE community. Asked to keep it as simple as possible, and refinements can be made later if required. Nick Hilliard: proposed to put 2007-01 back on the address policy working group for further discussions. Daniel Karrenberg: said he saw no one against the proposal. People not updating their contact details would not be cut off if they are using the IP space. The RIPE NCC has tools (like RIS) that can see if IP space is being used. Perhaps we should add something to the policy saying that LIRs should hold information on the organisations they are routing in case we need to contact them. Nick Hilliard: said that due to data protection, all we can do is ask the LIR to contact the end user for permission to give their contact details to the RIPE NCC. We can't compel LIRs to supply this information. Daniel Karrenberg: said that end users can be encouraged to supply correct contact information to LIRs so that the LIR can update the RIPE Database. The RIPE NCC needs something in writing to implement this. Wilfrid Woeber: wanted the community to give the RIPE NCC a mandate in order to give some sticks to motivate people to collaborate. Another stick is certification, or giving the NCC the right to update objects on the RIPE Database. Another point is that PI is not free, it counts towards the billing score of an LIR for the first 12 months only. This was based on RIPE NCC not charging for holding resources. But now we see there is a running cost for holding and tracking resources so the charging scheme needs to be looked at. PI is too cheap but not free. Hans Petter Holen (Visma IT): thought it was a good proposal. We need a stronger link between the database and who is holding the resources, which is why charging and some kind of certification is needed in the long term. We need to get approval from the community on the proposal and budgetary stuff, then decide how we will police this. LIRs can filter on information on the RIPE Database for example, also black holes could be be used for people who don't pay their bills. Carsten Schiefner (Deutsche Telekom): liked the proposal. Would like more of the policing function in the proposal. Also would like to see what it would cost to implement what Hans Petter Holen suggested. Richard Cox (Spamhaus project): has investigated inappropriate bgp announcements- whatever addresses are used by people doing bad things are bogus. The only solution to get any sort of policing is to get the Tier1s on board. LIRs would need to have contractual agreements with end users saying that only they can use the IP space assigned. Have we asked them? Nick Hilliard: said this is a difficult problem- it involves creating access lists for starters. A lot of Tier1s and Tier2s filter customer announcements already. Inappropriate bgp announcements falls outside the scope of this proposal. Denis Walker (RIPE NCC): supported this proposal. The RIPE NCC is legally obliged to make sure the data on the RIPE Database is accurate so we want a mandate to clean up the database. We receive complaints sometimes due to problems originating from IP space that has incorrect contact details. But we are unable to do anything about it. Gert Doering: said he heard only supporting voices and asked for show of hands if anyone opposed this proposal- no hands went up. Action point on RIPE NCC: prepare for the implementation of Nick Hilliard's proposal if approved by the community in the Address Policy Working Group. Action point on Nick Hilliard: put proposal forward on the mailing list. ----- 4. Presentation : Proposal for Restructuring the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy - Leo Vegoda (personal view) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/vegoda-v6-policy.pdf Gert Doering: said that we got rid of the 200 rule for IPv6 allocations. George Michaelson (APNIC): said people don't usually come back for more IPv6 space. We are giving out very large amounts of IPv6 space at the moment. Geoff Huston (APNIC): said the PI/PA distinction is confusing everyone and removing it would be good, because an address is an address. We need to decide what we want to achieve from the proposal and what the industry needs from us. Do we want LIRs to get an IPv6 allocation and never come back, or come back for an allocation after a certain time period (like one year). We don't want to replicate IPv4 policies which ended up in scarcity. However coming back for IPv6 allocations every year is maybe too much. Gert Doering: said a PI is given for a well defined need for a well defined network. A PA block allows for growth which is difficult to plan. Coming back every year/ 6 months for new allocations for example gives aggregation problems. Ruedi Volk: said scarcity in IPv6 is no problem, but the routing table size is. The only way to keep control of the number of routes is the PI/PA distinction. Cathy Aronson (ARIN): said one big distinction between PA and PI is that you can't easily change providers with PA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, October 25, 09:00-10:30 5. Discussion of All Other Current Open Policy Proposals Proposal 2005-08 to Amend the IPv6 Assignment & Utilisation Requirement Policy Sander Steffann: consensus has been reached on this proposal and it will be going through. Proposal 2007-05 IPv6 ULA-Central Sander Steffann: this is waiting for the decision by the IETF. We will re-start this proposal if the IETF gives the go-ahead. If not approved by the IETF it will be withdrawn. ------ 6. End of IPv4 Session Presentation: Proposal 2007-06 "Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space" - Roque Gagliano (ANTEL) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-06.html Toshiyuki Hosaka (JPNIC): also has proposal 2007-07 which is the same as the proposal above except it says only a single /8 will be given to each RIR at the point when new IANA free pool hits 5 */8 Wilfrid Woeber: said it is good to make things reasonable equal at the end. To avoid RIR shopping the number of allocations (N) should be small (1 or 2). Nick Hilliard: said fairest way is N=0. Burn rates in each RIR are significantly different, for example AFRINIC and APNIC, which could create political problems and horse trading later. Addresses should be allocated as needed not for any political purpose. Roque Gagliano: said it is possible that AFRINIC could get the last /8 for example depending on which RIR qualified for an allocation at a particular time. Jordi Palet (Consulintel): said he was against a policy change. Whatever we try to do to be fair may not work, as the policy could be changed again in a few months anyway. One of the aims of the proposal may be to give developing regions more time to implement IPv6, but this could damage the implementation of IPv6 in these regions. Ruedi Volk: said that only N=0 or 1 is acceptable. 1 gives a predictable end game. But the period before this will still be unpredictable which cannot be avoided. Raul Echeberria (LACNIC): said he has a lot of sympathy with the proposal. The current situation is against the conservation of IPs because the more you allocate the more you get. Certainty and predictability is important at the end. Gert Doering: said this proposal will move the uncertainty phase sooner. Another suggestion is to make IPs more difficult to get- we should never do that because IPs should be issued on the basis of need. Roque Gagliano: said other RIRs gave feedback saying this proposal will allow more time for planning. If the gentleman's agreement about 2 * /8s at a time is not stuck to, one of the big RIRs could get the last 8 * /8s for example. Geza Turchanyi (Magyar Telekom): said we should go to IPv6 faster to avoid this solution. The RIR receiving the last /8 will have a lot more IPs than the other RIRs have. Niall Murphy (Google): said RIR shopping should be considered in the solution. Roque Gagliano: said we don't know what will happen after exhaustion day. Some large multinational companies can already get addresses from different RIRs around the World. Niall Murphy: said some large organisations with a presence around the World will be able to RIR shopping, but smaller ones will not. N=1 or 0 looks okay, but 5 is odd. David Kessens (Nokia Siemens): said we are in the business of giving addresses to people that need it, not to reduce uncertainty for RIRs. Carsten Schiefner: said certainty argument not so important. The IP needs for larger RIRs are greater than that for smaller RIRs. Roque Gagliano: said we continue with current policies but we are only talking about the last /8s. Any formula we decide on, someone can consider unfair. Laura Cobley (RIPE NCC): Jabber comment from Per Heldahl- no matter what we do there will always be someone who gets the last /8. He thinks all the RIRs should run out at approximately the same time. He suggest that IANA could issue single /8s at a time. Gert Doering: said that was an interesting suggestion. He thought that saying the RIRs would not stick to the gentleman's agreement is somewhat offensive as it shows some mistrust. Geoff Huston: said the end of the free allocations does not mean the end of IPv4. We should be worrying about what happens next instead of this because there is not much time left. Gert Doering: summary of discussion- no support for N=5, some support for N=1. A lot of voices for 0. No consensus in the room. If we do it, N=1 is the one to pursue. We will discuss in the working group and the PDP process. Wilfrid Woeber: asked if N=5 was ratified by APNIC? Roque Gagliano: said it is waiting for the LACNIC board's decision. Wilfrid Woeber: said this will need global agreement. N=5 won't be agreed on globally. Raul Echeberria: said he thinks the board will not approve this so the discussion remains open. ----- Presentation: Proposal 2007-08 Reallocation of v4 resources - Remco van Mook (Virtu) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/van-mook-2007-08_reallocation_of_v4_resources.pdf Geoff Huston: asked if there will be any conditions or constraints on the LIR "disposing" of an allocation. In the APNIC proposal the "disposing" LIR can't get another allocation for 2 years. 2 years because it will take 1 year for the proposal to go through and APNIC will probably not be able to issue more allocations 2 years after that. So the selling LIR can't come back and get another allocation to sell. Remco van Mook: thought restraints like this would decrease liquidity of IP addresses. We would like people to start using this proposal before we run out of addresses. Geoff Huston: said in the APNIC proposal the acquirer of the allocation would be required to have a 80% usage rate on all its allocations (including acquired ones) before it could qualify for an additional allocation. Remco van Mook: said it is not in this proposal, but usage rates will be looked at under current policies. Gert Doering: said that 80% usage to qualify for an additional allocation should be made clear. Geoff Huston: said people might acquire IPs to sell them later. An idea he heard might be that allocations can only be transferred once, to try and reduce the number of speculators. Remco van Mook: said it would be bad for liquidity to only be able to transfer an allocation once. Leo Vegoda: said the proposal says allocations can only be transferred within the RIPE region. Is it an issue if the physical address of buying organisation is outside the region? Remco van Mook: said it would not be a problem as long as the address space is registered with the RIPE NCC. Laura Cobley (RIPE NCC): Jabber comment from Per Heldahl- NRO guidelines say that IPs are not held as property. These guidelines would need to be changed. Gert Doering: said the guidelines say addresses are not property but companies are being bought with networks and addresses included. Geza Turchanyi: said we should create a pool for re-using addresses. Hans Petter Holen: said people are already buying and selling companies which include IPs. Today we assign this commodity based on need. We are creating a market for this commodity. Maybe we need to do some research into what happened in other industries in the past in these situations. Cathy Aronson (ARIN): said perhaps we should have a restriction such as you are not allowed to sell IPs until 2 years after they were allocated. Remco van Mook: said that was a good idea. Mark McFadden (BT): said RIPE already has a policy and mechanism for transferring allocations between LIRs. He is worried about the unintended consequences of this proposal which are that IPs can be seen as assets so people may be taxed on them. The market part is worrying. Remco van Mook: said we should seek some advice from economic experts outside the community. Gert Doering: summary of discussion- some support and some words of caution. We need to discuss further on the mailing list. ----- 7. Formulation of an official statement from the RIPE community regarding the end of IPv4, and recommendations for moving towards IPv6. - Sander Steffann http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/steffann-ripe-resolution_on_IPv4_depletion_and_deployment_of_IPv6.pdf Gert Doering: said external organisations have asked what our official opinion is on IPv6. As the RIPE NCC is a secretariat they can't make political statements which is why we are asking you. It will be finalised in the IPv6 working group. Jim Reid (RIPE NCC executive board): said point 5 should mention software vendors in addition to equipment vendors. Rob Blokzijl (RIPE): said this statement is meant for an external audience, like governments and policy makers. It is not a manual about how to implement IPv6. We should focus on the message and not have too much detail, or the intended audience will lose interest. Sander Steffann: said the idea is to give people a message to move to IPv6. Geza Turchanyi: said the statement that the internet will continue as normal is too strong. Jim Reid: said the message should be business as usual even if we run out of IPv4 addresses. Websites and email etc will still work after IPv4 runs out. Sander Steffann: asked for feedback on point 2. Ruedi Volk: asked if this statement is saying application providers don't have to do IPv6 until network providers and ISPs do the gateway? Sander Steffann: said maybe the wording needs to be broadened. Ruedi Volk: said we should cut down specifics as much as possible. Sander Steffann: asked for feedback on point 3. Bernard Tuy: said it is not useful to have this point here. IPv6 has been in operation for years. Rob Blokzijl: said this point will confuse the audience. It should convey the message that we don't need other organisations involvement to deal with this problem. It needs re-wording. Sander Steffann: agreed some re-wording is needed. He then asked for feedback on point 4- there were no comments. He then asked for feedback on point 5. Rob Blokzijl: said drop this as it is covered by point 4. Niall Murphy: said pressure on vendors comes in tender documents, not here. Remco van Mook: said keep the message as short as possible, the message is do IPv6 now. Geza Turchanyi: said IPv6 is running in the backbone but for DSL is poor. Some encouragement for IPv6 in this area should be encouraged. Jord Palet: said a message to end users to request IPv6 is not here. You could make separate texts for users, vendors, policy makers. The message should be focussed not short. Rob Blokzijl: said he does not agree with Jordi. The community needs a single short statement for policy makers, governments etc. There is a problem (with IPv4 exhaustion) but not as bad as people think. Sub-sections will not be useful. David Kessens: said the message needs to be short and simple. This will be discussed in the IPv6 Working Group, where a longer session has been made available. Gert Doering: summary of discussion- Sander Steffann and I will work with Rob Blokzijl and David Kessens in the working group to try and finalise this. END---- ----- End forwarded message ----- Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From filiz at ripe.net Mon Apr 28 14:01:12 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:01:12 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) Message-ID: <20080428120112.DFA332F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2008-01 has been extended until 16 May 2008. With the acceptance of this proposal, the RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time operation to assign a /56 IPv6 PI prefix to all End Users with an IPv4 assignment registered in the RIPE Database. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-01.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to . Regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From filiz at ripe.net Mon Apr 28 14:07:32 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:07:32 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) Message-ID: <20080428120732.D90FE2F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2008-02 Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2008-02 has been extended until 16 May 2008. With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to . Regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From frederic at placenet.org Mon Apr 28 14:21:35 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:21:35 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <20080428120112.DFA332F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080428120112.DFA332F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <1209385295.21047.8.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Le lundi 28 avril 2008 ? 14:01 +0200, Filiz Yilmaz a ?crit : > PDP Number: 2008-01 > Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder > > Dear Colleagues, > > The Review Period for the proposal 2008-01 has been extended until 16 May 2008. > > With the acceptance of this proposal, the RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time operation to assign a /56 IPv6 PI prefix to all End Users with an IPv4 assignment registered in the RIPE Database. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-01.html > > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments > to . > > Regards, > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer > > We support : we suggest /48 for /22 or more Ipv4 PI Holder. and /56 for less /22 (/23 /24) ipv4 pi Holder. is it possible to imagine 2 processes of this automatic distribution ? 1) first : use admin-c and tech-c to contact and ask if they are alive ? delay answer 15 days or more ? that permit to have an idea about dead/phantom Ipv4 PI users. 2) distribution bst regards. Fr?d?ric From cfriacas at fccn.pt Mon Apr 28 14:48:29 2008 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:48:29 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <20080428120112.DFA332F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080428120112.DFA332F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2008-01 > Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder > > Dear Colleagues, > > The Review Period for the proposal 2008-01 has been extended until 16 May 2008. > > With the acceptance of this proposal, the RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time operation to assign a /56 IPv6 PI prefix to all End Users with an IPv4 assignment registered in the RIPE Database. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-01.html > > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments > to . > > Regards, > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer > > I'm against this proposal. I'm in favour of IPv6 PI allocations which are the result of an explict IPv6 address request (from future holders). Regards, ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Friac,as See: Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN) www.gigapix.pt FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional www.ipv6.eu Av. do Brasil, n.101 www.6diss.org 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, Europe Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167 www.fccn.pt ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The end is near........ see http://ipv4.potaroo.net "Internet is just routes (241744/992), naming (billions) and... people!" Esta mensagem foi enviada de: / This message was sent from: 2001:690:2080:8004:250:daff:fe3b:2830 Aviso de Confidencialidade Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo de imediato. Warning This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received due to any error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately. From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Apr 28 15:02:18 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:02:18 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <20080428120732.D90FE2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080428120732.D90FE2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: > With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a > one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR > that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings. > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html I'm concerned with the way that this policy is worded. First, it has the same impact as saying that any LIR with IPv4 resources is exempt from 5.1.1 c) in RIPE 421 which says that you must have a plan to sub-allocate IPv6 addresses in order to justify an IPv6 block. This has the effect of raising the barrier to entry for organizations which do no currently have IPv4 allocations, i.e. the criteria for new entrants is stricter than for current RIPE members. Second, some of the organizations receiving these /32 blocks would be able to justify much larger blocks. We got a /22 last year for instance. It seems to me that it would be nicer to offer LIRs an IPv6 block rather than automatically allocating one. If an LIR might be able to justify a larger allocation than /32, then the offer could explain how to do that. This issue here is one of communication. If you simply allocate an IPv6 block but do not clearly communicate this to the LIR (including acknowledgement from the LIR) then you are simply making meaningless entries in a database. The LIR will never use the block and in the next two or three years they will submit another application, or else swamp the RIPE help desk with queries about this strange database object that they have discovered. I am generally in favour of this but I think it needs to be fair to all organizations by removing the condition in 5.1.1 c) in RIPE 421 and it needs to begin by engaging the LIR to ensure that they understand that a /32 is about to be allocated, and they are ready to accept the allocation. The process of allocation is much more than making a database entry. Communication with the LIR and acknowledgement of the LIR are necessary in order to allocate an address block. --Michael Dillon From cfriacas at fccn.pt Mon Apr 28 15:03:27 2008 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:03:27 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <20080428120732.D90FE2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080428120732.D90FE2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2008-02 > Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR > > Dear Colleagues, > > The Review Period for the proposal 2008-02 has been extended until 16 May 2008. > > With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html > > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments > to . > > Regards, > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer > > I'm also against this proposal. LIRs should be able to request their v6 address space according to their needs. If some (i mean the majority) still didn't do it, they should be able to do it in the future based on real numbers, and thus getting the proper IPv6 allocation size (which might not be a /32...). Would this policy, if accepted, be OK with the IANA and the other RIRs? What would happen if a RIR community tried to pull a last+preemptive IPv*4* allocation for all its LIRs? ;-) Seriously... i'm convinced the original idea behind this policy had a good intention, but let's focus our efforts in explaining why do we need an IPv6 Internet, and in really doing it! Enforcement policies (like this one) will not cut it. Best Regards, ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Friac,as See: Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN) www.gigapix.pt FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional www.ipv6.eu Av. do Brasil, n.101 www.6diss.org 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, Europe Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167 www.fccn.pt ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The end is near........ see http://ipv4.potaroo.net "Internet is just routes (241744/992), naming (billions) and... people!" Esta mensagem foi enviada de: / This message was sent from: 2001:690:2080:8004:250:daff:fe3b:2830 Aviso de Confidencialidade Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo de imediato. Warning This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received due to any error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately. From randy at psg.com Mon Apr 28 15:04:12 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:04:12 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <20080428120732.D90FE2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080428120732.D90FE2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4815CB4C.8070405@psg.com> > With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a one-time > operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have > any existing IPv6 holdings. > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html this proposal is silly and restrictive. we should give a /24 away to all people that pay their electric bill. is anyone else here old enough to remember the A and B giveaways? does this seem at all familiar? and for those, they at least had to ask. what do the advocates think giving something to someone that does not want it will accomplish? is it not a like throwing yourself at the ground and missing? randy From nick at inex.ie Mon Apr 28 15:20:26 2008 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:20:26 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <20080428120732.D90FE2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080428120732.D90FE2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4815CF1A.7050008@inex.ie> > With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a one-time > operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have any > existing IPv6 holdings. Under current IPv6 allocation policies, I understand that the allocation process goes like this: lir: please give me a /32; i intend to assign IPv6 addresses. ripe ncc: here you go. In this light, 2008-02 is a very odd solution to a problem which - as far as I can tell - doesn't exist. But I might be tempted to support it if the RIPE NCC were to hand out a free packet of Smarties with every /32. Nick From gert at space.net Mon Apr 28 15:24:39 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:24:39 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <4815CF1A.7050008@inex.ie> References: <20080428120732.D90FE2F583@herring.ripe.net> <4815CF1A.7050008@inex.ie> Message-ID: <20080428132439.GQ11038@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 02:20:26PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > But I might be tempted to support it if the > RIPE NCC were to hand out a free packet of Smarties with every /32. In the strive for balanced and fair policies, this would need to include that all existing IPv6 allocation holders get a packet of Smarties as well. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From randy at psg.com Mon Apr 28 15:28:39 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:28:39 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <20080428132439.GQ11038@Space.Net> References: <20080428120732.D90FE2F583@herring.ripe.net> <4815CF1A.7050008@inex.ie> <20080428132439.GQ11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4815D107.3070608@psg.com> > In the strive for balanced and fair policies, this would need to include > that all existing IPv6 allocation holders get a packet of Smarties as well. this is back asswards. everyone who buys a packet of smarties should be given a /32 randy From tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk Mon Apr 28 15:38:37 2008 From: tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:38:37 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <4815D107.3070608@psg.com> References: <20080428120732.D90FE2F583@herring.ripe.net> <4815CF1A.7050008@inex.ie> <20080428132439.GQ11038@Space.Net> <4815D107.3070608@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080428133837.GH6750@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:28:39PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > In the strive for balanced and fair policies, this would need to include > > that all existing IPv6 allocation holders get a packet of Smarties as well. > > this is back asswards. everyone who buys a packet of smarties should be > given a /32 Do we really need to allocate a /37 per smartie? But in all seriousness, I don't like this proposal as it stands. -- Tim From filiz at ripe.net Mon Apr 28 16:49:28 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:49:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 28 May 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) Message-ID: <20080428144928.DAA452F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2007-08 has been extended until 28 May 2008. This proposal outlines a framework to migrate previously allocated IPv4 resources from one Local Internet Registry (LIR) to another LIR within the RIPE NCC Service Region. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to . Regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From lutz at iks-jena.de Mon Apr 28 14:43:46 2008 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:43:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) References: <1209385295.21047.8.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: * Frederic wrote: > Le lundi 28 avril 2008 ? 14:01 +0200, Filiz Yilmaz a ?crit : >> PDP Number: 2008-01 >> Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder > > We support : > > we suggest /48 for /22 or more Ipv4 PI Holder. > and /56 for less /22 (/23 /24) ipv4 pi Holder. This proposal is about IPv6 PI for every IPv4 PA holder. It's not for IPv4 PI. > 1) first : use admin-c and tech-c to contact and ask if they are alive ? The role adresses have to be correct. That's part of the LIR commitment. From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Mon Apr 28 15:37:27 2008 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:37:27 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <4815D107.3070608@psg.com> References: <20080428120732.D90FE2F583@herring.ripe.net> <4815CF1A.7050008@inex.ie> <20080428132439.GQ11038@Space.Net> <4815D107.3070608@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080428133727.GA22659@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:28:39PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > In the strive for balanced and fair policies, this would need to include > > that all existing IPv6 allocation holders get a packet of Smarties as well. > > this is back asswards. everyone who buys a packet of smarties should be > given a /32 > > randy there will still be too much v6 space left... a v6 /32 for every mars bar! From frederic at placenet.org Tue Apr 29 11:16:54 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:16:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: References: <1209385295.21047.8.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <1209460614.14814.5.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Le lundi 28 avril 2008 ? 12:43 +0000, Lutz Donnerhacke a ?crit : > * Frederic wrote: > > Le lundi 28 avril 2008 ? 14:01 +0200, Filiz Yilmaz a ?crit : > >> PDP Number: 2008-01 > >> Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder > > > > We support : > > > > we suggest /48 for /22 or more Ipv4 PI Holder. > > and /56 for less /22 (/23 /24) ipv4 pi Holder. > > This proposal is about IPv6 PI for every IPv4 PA holder. > It's not for IPv4 PI. PROPOSAL: Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Ipv4-PI holser has inetnum. bst regards. Frederic > > > 1) first : use admin-c and tech-c to contact and ask if they are alive ? > > The role adresses have to be correct. That's part of the LIR commitment. > From lutz at iks-jena.de Tue Apr 29 13:21:38 2008 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:21:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <1209460614.14814.5.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> References: <1209460614.14814.5.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <200804291121.m3TBLc21003906@belenus.iks-jena.de> In iks.lists.ripe.address-policy-wg, you wrote: > Le lundi 28 avril 2008 ? 12:43 +0000, Lutz Donnerhacke a ?crit : >> * Frederic wrote: >> > we suggest /48 for /22 or more Ipv4 PI Holder. >> > and /56 for less /22 (/23 /24) ipv4 pi Holder. >> >> This proposal is about IPv6 PI for every IPv4 PA holder. >> It's not for IPv4 PI. > > PROPOSAL: > Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder > > Ipv4-PI holser has inetnum. Of course. I misunderstand your intention. Sorry. From filiz at ripe.net Tue Apr 29 18:04:28 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:04:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-03 New Draft Document Published (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space) Message-ID: <20080429160428.99EF32F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2008-03 Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space Dear Colleagues, We have published a draft document for the proposal described in 2008-03 and the proposal is moved to Review Phase. This proposal describes the process for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space from IANA to the RIRs. When a minimum amount of available space is reached, one /8 will be allocated from IANA to each RIR, replacing the current IPv4 allocation policy. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-03.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2008-03-global-policy-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 27 May 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From andy at nosignal.org Wed Apr 30 01:16:05 2008 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:16:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: References: <20080428120112.DFA332F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <26993B93-817E-4388-9FD5-9210EA43A02E@nosignal.org> On 28 Apr 2008, at 13:48, Carlos Friacas wrote: >> PDP Number: 2008-01 >> Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder > I'm against this proposal. > I'm in favour of IPv6 PI allocations which are the result of an > explict IPv6 address request (from future holders). I agree with Carlos. I find it frustrating that I can't request IPv6 PI for my customers who want it today, but here we have a proposal suggesting anyone with v4 PI can have some v6 PI automatically. I would be rolling out v6 PI services for customer networks if I could ask for some v6 PI ! Andy From frederic at placenet.org Wed Apr 30 09:51:42 2008 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:51:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <26993B93-817E-4388-9FD5-9210EA43A02E@nosignal.org> References: <20080428120112.DFA332F583@herring.ripe.net> <26993B93-817E-4388-9FD5-9210EA43A02E@nosignal.org> Message-ID: <1209541902.6764.2.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Le mercredi 30 avril 2008 ? 00:16 +0100, Andy Davidson a ?crit : > On 28 Apr 2008, at 13:48, Carlos Friacas wrote: > >> PDP Number: 2008-01 > >> Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder > > I'm against this proposal. > > I'm in favour of IPv6 PI allocations which are the result of an > > explict IPv6 address request (from future holders). > > I agree with Carlos. > > I find it frustrating that I can't request IPv6 PI for my customers > who want it today, but here we have a proposal suggesting anyone with > v4 PI can have some v6 PI automatically. I would be rolling out v6 PI > services for customer networks if I could ask for some v6 PI ! > > Andy > It is a way to keep captive his client, because if he receives an automatic block IPV6 and that its suppliers do not know do certain things, it could have the unfortunate idea to go elsewhere. keep all under control! That is why this automatic distribution is really a very good idea for the development of the Internet. that why we support, and that why i'm not agree with carlos and andy ;) bst regards. Fr?d?ric From andy at nosignal.org Wed Apr 30 09:55:19 2008 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:55:19 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <1209541902.6764.2.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> References: <20080428120112.DFA332F583@herring.ripe.net> <26993B93-817E-4388-9FD5-9210EA43A02E@nosignal.org> <1209541902.6764.2.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: On 30 Apr 2008, at 08:51, Frederic wrote: > It is a way to keep captive his client, because if he receives an > automatic block IPV6 and that its suppliers do not know do certain > things, it could have the unfortunate idea to go elsewhere. Respectfully, no. PI means provider *independent*. If I apply for PA and assign /48s, my customer is not free to multihome simply, or move providers without renumbering. Whether I submit an application for PI on behalf of my customer, or whether RIPE give them some PI because of this policy, it doesn't change my customers' ability to multihome or even terminate their service with me. Support ipv6 PI, please. But only by request. Best wishes Andy From ms at man-da.de Wed Apr 30 10:34:44 2008 From: ms at man-da.de (Marcus Stoegbauer) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:34:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2008-03 New Draft Document Published (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space) In-Reply-To: <20080429160428.99EF32F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080429160428.99EF32F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <48182F24.8050606@man-da.de> Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2008-03 > Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space > > Dear Colleagues, > > We have published a draft document for the proposal described in > 2008-03 and the proposal is moved to Review Phase. > > This proposal describes the process for the allocation of the > remaining IPv4 space from IANA to the RIRs. When a minimum amount of > available space is reached, one /8 will be allocated from IANA to > each RIR, replacing the current IPv4 allocation policy. I don't think a policy with a fixed size allocation to each RIR will do any good once the IPv4 space is running really low, especially given that the consumption speed of the RIRs is quite diverse. I would much rather see an adaptive policy (for example as described in 2007-09) in place. Marcus From alxl at cronosit.lv Wed Apr 30 10:25:18 2008 From: alxl at cronosit.lv (Alexander Lobachov) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:25:18 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: References: <20080428120112.DFA332F583@herring.ripe.net> <26993B93-817E-4388-9FD5-9210EA43A02E@nosignal.org> <1209541902.6764.2.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> Message-ID: <48182CEE.7000803@cronosit.lv> Hello, Andy Davidson wrote: > > On 30 Apr 2008, at 08:51, Frederic wrote: >> It is a way to keep captive his client, because if he receives an >> automatic block IPV6 and that its suppliers do not know do certain >> things, it could have the unfortunate idea to go elsewhere. > > Respectfully, no. > > PI means provider *independent*. If I apply for PA and assign /48s, my > customer is not free to multihome simply, or move providers without > renumbering. Actually you can multihome, as simple as it gets. Who can stop you to set up personal peerings with others, just because you're already in routing tables (as part of the bigger PA alloc prefix)? > > Whether I submit an application for PI on behalf of my customer, or > whether RIPE give them some PI because of this policy, it doesn't change > my customers' ability to multihome or even terminate their service with me. > As I've said above, multihoming is possible inside of PA, but you (almost) always will get being tied with PA holder, i.e. in (almost) any case you will be visible as part of PA alloc announcement, more speficial is preferable, remember. Once again, PA and PI doesn't really differ from routing point of view. I have no expirience with IPv6 at all, all written above is correct with IPv4, and > Support ipv6 PI, please. But only by request. Support IPv6, period. I don't think we need all the garbage with PI in IPv6 as we have in IPv4 ("lost" address space) > > Best wishes > Andy -- Best regards, Alexander Lobachov alxl at cronosit.lv System administrator Cronos IT, SIA From mohacsi at niif.hu Wed Apr 30 11:07:05 2008 From: mohacsi at niif.hu (Mohacsi Janos) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:07:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder) In-Reply-To: <48182CEE.7000803@cronosit.lv> References: <20080428120112.DFA332F583@herring.ripe.net> <26993B93-817E-4388-9FD5-9210EA43A02E@nosignal.org> <1209541902.6764.2.camel@shmee.ring-world.net> <48182CEE.7000803@cronosit.lv> Message-ID: <20080430110117.F71351@mignon.ki.iif.hu> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Alexander Lobachov wrote: > Hello, > > Andy Davidson wrote: >> >> On 30 Apr 2008, at 08:51, Frederic wrote: >>> It is a way to keep captive his client, because if he receives an >>> automatic block IPV6 and that its suppliers do not know do certain >>> things, it could have the unfortunate idea to go elsewhere. >> >> Respectfully, no. >> >> PI means provider *independent*. If I apply for PA and assign /48s, my >> customer is not free to multihome simply, or move providers without >> renumbering. > Actually you can multihome, as simple as it gets. Who can stop you to set up > personal peerings with others, just because you're already in routing tables > (as part of the bigger PA alloc prefix)? > >> >> Whether I submit an application for PI on behalf of my customer, or whether >> RIPE give them some PI because of this policy, it doesn't change my >> customers' ability to multihome or even terminate their service with me. >> > As I've said above, multihoming is possible inside of PA, but you (almost) > always will get being tied with PA holder, i.e. in (almost) any case you will > be visible as part of PA alloc announcement, more speficial is preferable, > remember. > > Once again, PA and PI doesn't really differ from routing point of view. I think it is different from operational routing point of view: If you have PA prefix you can announce your routes only to your provider unless you have different agreement with your friendly peers. But these friendly peers should not announce your PA routes anyone else upstream. Aggregation should happen via your provider allocated PA for you. In case of PI you much more freedom.... Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi From gert at space.net Wed Apr 30 14:28:17 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:28:17 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Agenda for RIPE 56 - 2nd draft In-Reply-To: <20080418082213.GY11038@Space.Net> References: <20080418082213.GY11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20080430122817.GA88738@Space.Net> Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 and Thursday, 09:00-10:30 In the RIR plenary section on Tuesday morning, we will have a presentation from Filiz Yilmaz on ongoing policy work in other regions, so we know what "they" are working on, and can try to learn from it. (Thanks!) Furthermore, there is a presentation and live demo from the resource certification (CA) Task Force in the plenary on Tuesday, 11:00-12:30 - they will bring up a proposal to the APWG, so it might be a good idea to hear the presentation to understand what is being worked on. The exact time lines depend a bit on the outcome of the policy proposals currently (and soon to be) in "last call". regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ----------------------- snip ---------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 A. Administrative Matters 5 min (selecting a scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. Overview over concluded protocols 10 min B.1 2007-07 - End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs withdrawn, replaced by 2008-03 B.2 2007-06 - Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 ... withdrawn, replaced by 2008-03 B.3 2005-08 - Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment an Utilisatio ... (change of /48 to "LIR's choice", /56, and HD-Ratio) accepted B.4 2007-03 - IPv4 Countdown Policy withdrawn, replaced by 2007-06/2007-07, replaced by 2008-03 B.5 2007-04 - IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs accepted, currently in ASO AC review (one of the ASO AC representatives will be volunteered) C. New Proposals since RIPE 55 [25 min] C.1 2008-01 - Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder 10 min C.2 2008-02 - Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR 10 min + discussion C.3 2008-03 - Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 5 m Address Space (IPv4 countdown policy, revisited) [C.4 2008-* - if anything else appears in the meantime] D. "Contracts and Certification session, part 1" [50 min] D.1 2007-01 - wrap up, next steps, comments from the NCC board 25 min - wrap-up by Nick Hilliard & APWG chair - discussion D.2 proposal coming out of the Certification Authority (CA) TF - presentation by Nigel Titley 25 min - discussion Thursday, 09:00-11:30 Welcome back 5 min E. Restart PI discussions (if we have consensus on 2007-01) 40 min E.1 2006-01 - Provider Independent IPv6 Assignment for End User Organizations E.2 2006-05 - PI Assignment Size E.3 2008-01 - Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder F. "End of IPv4" session - generic discussion on how to proceed 45 min F.1 -- - presentation by Filiz Yilmaz on the ongoing transfer policy discussions in the other RIR regions F.2 2007-08 - Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources ("The Market" proposal) F.3 2007-09 - Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool (Tony Hain's proposal) F.4 2008-03 - Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 ... (/8 reservations to RIRs) Z. AOB -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From turchanyi.geza at gmail.com Wed Apr 30 14:55:08 2008 From: turchanyi.geza at gmail.com (Turchanyi Geza) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:55:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Joking follow-up Message-ID: Hi, Is there anyone experienced in creating RIPE policy documents AND ready to help me to create a new one? (Or: two new ones). In the previous RIPE meeting I gave a talk ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes-half-proposal.pdf) and attached a copy of a draft-RFC ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-jokes.pdf ) I realized that some of my ideas relate to policies, other relate to technologies. As there is a separate policy working group now, I try to create a policy document as well ? and need some help to formalize and may be finalize, correct my ideas. Highlights: 1, AS-local IPv4 address pool creation and maintenance 2, IPv6 address pool and address allocation for dummies Details1 (AS-local IPv4): The drafts ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-jokes.pdf) gives more details, please find a short summary below. One of our responses to IPv4 address scarcity was the creation of "IPv4 private address pool" in 1994-1996. However: The scope of private addresses is not defined well; The private address pool size is too small for large ISPs; Network Address Translation should be in use at every routing domain borders. AS-local IPv4 pool should be similar but a little bit different compared to private address pool: Uniquely use in every Autonomous system (or collaborative group of ASs) Different set of IPv4 addresses (different scope!); Mechanism to add and revoke address-blocks by contributors to this pool should be implemented (in order to create a contribution-friendly atmosphere); Network Address Translation should be applied only if the destination address is outside of the originator Autonomous System boundary. The introduction of AS-local addresses would help us not only maintain our present IPv4 service, however, support the IPv4->IPv6 transition. (See below) Details2 - IPv6 address pool and address allocation for dummies: As everybody knows, there are well defined IP address allocation policies for fixed, static networks, like an University campus, or an enterprise network. These sites should have administrative and technical contact persons, the "tech" knows what an IP address is, the "admin" pays the bill, and both person is in the database of the Regional Registry. However, a huge part of the IP address space is used differently: both the "tech" and the "admin" work for the ISP, and the actual costumer of the IP address might not even know that he/she is using an IP address. (is a dummy costumer, only in this respect). This is the typical case in DSL environment today with IPv4. The introduction of IPv6 won't change too much. Shall we treat and regulate the IP address allocation for the "dummies" in the same way as we do it for the "experts"? I do not think so. In fact, we can not. Is there any policy for the "dummies"? I was unable to find it. If you have 30 millions "dummy" DSL (or cable modem, or mobile-phone) users how would you provide IP addresses for them? Of course, global addresses are the best. However, as there are not enough global addresses, some tricks should be applied. Common practice: allocate IP addresses dynamically. (BTW: dynamic allocation also mean pseudo-anonym and temporary allocation.) Dynamic allocation saves addresses considerably. However: If only 50% of the costumers connect at peak time today, tomorrow this may increase to 60%. That means: the need for addresses increased 20% while the costumer base is still the same. Using non-global, reusable IP addresses still does not solve all the problems. 30 millions is much more than the total size of the private address pool. Even if the ISP would assume, that not all users connect to the network at the same time, it might not help for long time as the number of costumer being on-line at peak time might increase. AND: using private addresses also means loosing functions. If your computer has a private address, you can not provide any services outside the private address domain (this stops using a couple of popular games, etc) This restriction is unavoidable consequence of using any kind of reusable addresses. However: the private address domain is very restricted. By using AS-local addresses, we would have a larger routing domain and fewer restrictions.) If we create an AS-local address pool, then it is possible to allocate reusable IP addresses in a more stable manner. This allocation is still a dynamic allocation, however, rather stable AND easy to couple IPv6 allocation with it. However, if we allocate IPv6 networks for every costumer that use dynamic IPv4 allocation today then most of them won't use for a while the IPv6 stuff. AND this IPv6 allocation will be pseudo-anonym, not directly reflected in the RIPE (or other RIRs) database. Therefore I suggest that ISP-s should have a dedicated IPv6 address pool for "dynamic IPv6" allocations and these address pool should be easily recognizable. (This was the reason why I proposed in my talk at RIPE 55, that all "dynamic IPv6" pool should be allocated from an IANA dedicated /16 prefix) The size of the "dynamic IPv6" network should be the minimal one: /64. If there are mechanism that allows automatic use a subnet, than a little bit bigger size might be allowed (max /60), however if /56 or /48 would be allowed than there wont be any more interest to have a RIPE registered network instead a "dynamic" one, therefore my suggestion is to declare in the policy that a "dynamic" IPv6 allocation should be as narrow as possible. OK. Please help me to rewrite the above idea to formulate policies. Thanks, Geza Turchanyi INFO-C -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cfriacas at fccn.pt Wed Apr 30 15:48:24 2008 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:48:24 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] Joking follow-up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > One of our responses to IPv4 address scarcity was the creation of "IPv4 > private address pool" in 1994-1996. However: > > The scope of private addresses is not defined well; > > The private address pool size is too small for large ISPs; > > Network Address Translation should be in use at every routing > domain borders. Why? If one doesn't feel the need to use NAT, why should NAT be mandatory? > AS-local IPv4 pool should be similar but a little bit different compared to > private address pool: > > Uniquely use in every Autonomous system (or collaborative group > of ASs) What's a collaborative group of AS'es? And what's a non-collaborative group os AS'es? > Different set of IPv4 addresses (different scope!); > > Mechanism to add and revoke address-blocks by contributors to > this pool should be implemented (in order to create a contribution-friendly > atmosphere); Past experience tells me people who manage address blocks *rarely* feel any urge to give back unused space... > Network Address Translation should be applied only if the > destination address is outside of the originator Autonomous System boundary. > > > > The introduction of AS-local addresses would help us not only maintain our > present IPv4 service, however, support the IPv4->IPv6 transition. (See > below) I don't agree it would help with v4 to v6 transition. Then AS border routers would have to route between 100.110.120.130-local and 100.110.120.130-internet. Seems kind of odd :-) This is kind of similar to administratively duplicate the v4 internet's space... > Details2 - IPv6 address pool and address allocation for dummies: > > > > As everybody knows, there are well defined IP address allocation policies > for fixed, static networks, like an University campus, or an enterprise > network. These sites should have administrative and technical contact > persons, the "tech" knows what an IP address is, the "admin" pays the bill, > and both person is in the database of the Regional Registry. Unfortunately not everybody knows about it, nor that always happens... :-( > However, a huge part of the IP address space is used differently: both the > "tech" and the "admin" work for the ISP, and the actual costumer of the IP > address might not even know that he/she is using an IP address. (is a dummy > costumer, only in this respect). This is the typical case in DSL environment > today with IPv4. The introduction of IPv6 won't change too much. Allow me to disagree. The main difference with IPv6 is the ability to assign each DSL customer with a set of subnets instead of a unique *temporary* IPv4 address! And while in the v4 world, you don't insert the record for 1 customer/1 IP, you could theoretically do it in the v6 world... (1 customer/ 1 slash-48or56or60or64) > Shall we treat and regulate the IP address allocation for the "dummies" in > the same way as we do it for the "experts"? Not sure if i like the "dummies"/"experts" context. This clearly need rephrasing if a policy proposal goes ahead... :-) > I do not think so. In fact, we can not. > > > > Is there any policy for the "dummies"? I was unable to find it. > > > > If you have 30 millions "dummy" DSL (or cable modem, or mobile-phone) users > how would you provide IP addresses for them? Yes, for everyone of them, but not at the same time. Hence, the "temporary". :-) > Of course, global addresses are the best. However, as there are not enough > global addresses, some tricks should be applied. And they are........ > Common practice: allocate IP addresses dynamically. (BTW: dynamic allocation > also mean pseudo-anonym and temporary allocation.) Dynamic allocation saves > addresses considerably. However: > > > > If only 50% of the costumers connect at peak time today, tomorrow this may > increase to 60%. That means: the need for addresses increased 20% while the > costumer base is still the same. > > > > Using non-global, reusable IP addresses still does not solve all the > problems. > > > > 30 millions is much more than the total size of the private address pool. > Even if the ISP would assume, that not all users connect to the network at > the same time, it might not help for long time as the number of costumer > being on-line at peak time might increase. Question: Have you ever been on a network which had under-provision of IP addresses? I surely did have. And it was kind of annoying. :-) > AND: using private addresses also means loosing functions. If your computer > has a private address, you can not provide any services outside the private > address domain (this stops using a couple of popular games, etc) This > restriction is unavoidable consequence of using any kind of reusable > addresses. However: the private address domain is very restricted. By using > AS-local addresses, we would have a larger routing domain and fewer > restrictions.) > > > > If we create an AS-local address pool, then it is possible to allocate > reusable IP addresses in a more stable manner. This allocation is still a > dynamic allocation, however, rather stable AND easy to couple IPv6 > allocation with it. > > > > However, if we allocate IPv6 networks for every costumer that use dynamic > IPv4 allocation today then most of them won't use for a while the IPv6 > stuff. AND this IPv6 allocation will be pseudo-anonym, not directly > reflected in the RIPE (or other RIRs) database. That depends on each LIR...... > Therefore I suggest that ISP-s should have a dedicated IPv6 address pool for > "dynamic IPv6" allocations and these address pool should be easily > recognizable. (This was the reason why I proposed in my talk at RIPE 55, > that all "dynamic IPv6" pool should be allocated from an IANA dedicated /16 > prefix) In other words, a new ?IPv6 very large private addressing? space? > The size of the "dynamic IPv6" network should be the minimal one: /64. If > there are mechanism that allows automatic use a subnet, than a little bit > bigger size might be allowed (max /60), however if /56 or /48 would be > allowed than there wont be any more interest to have a RIPE registered > network instead a "dynamic" one, therefore my suggestion is to declare in > the policy that a "dynamic" IPv6 allocation should be as narrow as possible. IPv6 can in fact be the tool to drop the "dynamic" allocation of addresses^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H addressing inside any ISP network..... so i don't really understand what's the objective here. > OK. Please help me to rewrite the above idea to formulate policies. > > > > Thanks, > > Geza Turchanyi > > INFO-C > Best Regards, ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Friac,as See: Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN) www.gigapix.pt FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional www.ipv6.eu Av. do Brasil, n.101 www.6diss.org 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, Europe Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167 www.fccn.pt ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The end is near........ see http://ipv4.potaroo.net "Internet is just routes (241744/992), naming (billions) and... people!" Esta mensagem foi enviada de: / This message was sent from: 2001:690:2080:8004:250:daff:fe3b:2830 Aviso de Confidencialidade Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo de imediato. Warning This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received due to any error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately. From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Apr 30 16:05:26 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:05:26 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > If you have 30 millions "dummy" DSL (or cable modem, or mobile-phone) users how would you provide IP addresses for them According to current RIPE policy, you assign each one of these DSL or cable modem customers with a /48. Mobile phones are different and should probably get a /64 since their internal networks will not have additional interfaces added. Of course, in the future we will have mobile phones which can act as Internet gateways for our car LAN and then they will get a /48. There are enough /48's availble in IPv6 to give every living human being over 4000 of them, so I don't see any problems with 30 million assignments. As far as education goes, the following ARIN wiki page has a good summary of how to set up an IPv6 allocation plan and it also links to an Internet draft that has a more detailed discussion of the topic: http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/IPv6_Addressing_Plans Everyone involved with IPv6 addressing on a practical level, should read this wiki page and the documents that it references. --Michael Dillon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From leo.vegoda at icann.org Wed Apr 30 16:44:24 2008 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:44:24 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D707915B21DC@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Michael, You wrote: > > If you have 30 millions "dummy" DSL (or cable modem, or mobile-phone) users > > how would you provide IP addresses for them > > According to current RIPE policy, you assign each one of these DSL or cable modem > customers with a /48. Mobile phones are different and should probably get a /64 > since their internal networks will not have additional interfaces added. Of course, > in the future we will have mobile phones which can act as Internet gateways for > our car LAN and then they will get a /48. That's not actually what the current policy document says. It's actual wording is: 5.4.1. Assignment address space size End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to make, using a minimum value of a /64 (only one subnet is anticipated for the End Site). The old policy (ripe-412) had the reference to RFC 3177 that you have paraphrased. But that recommendation has been removed and the only suggested limit is a minimum value of /64. Apart from that minimum, the network operator can do whatever makes most sense to their network and customer base. So, in answer to the original question, 30m /64s is fine if that's what is needed and 30m /56s is fine if that's what is needed and 30m /48s is fine if that's what is needed. There is a presumption of subsidiarity in the policy text, putting the choice into local hands. Regards, Leo Vegoda From iljitsch at muada.com Wed Apr 30 17:01:32 2008 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:01:32 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30 apr 2008, at 16:05, wrote: > According to current RIPE policy, you assign each one of these DSL or > cable modem customers with a /48. Mobile phones are different and > should > probably get a /64 since their internal networks will not have > additional interfaces added. That is a misconception. If I want to go online with my laptop through my mobile phone's cellular link, I need a prefix between the laptop and the phone and then something between the phone and the ISP. So that could be two separate /64s or some other setup, but just an address for the phone doesn't cut it. From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Apr 30 17:05:23 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:05:23 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D707915B21DC@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: , <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D707915B21DC@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: > That's not actually what the current policy document says. > It's actual wording is: > > 5.4.1. Assignment address space size > > End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their > LIR or ISP. > The size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR > or ISP to make, > using a minimum value of a /64 (only one subnet is > anticipated for the > End Site). Ok, it has changed and I did not notice it. By the way this is TERRIBLE English. Parentheses are no substitute for clear language. The size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR to make. The minimum value of the assignment is /64 which is to be used when only one subnet is anticipated for the End Site. Of course this leaves out some important context explaining that all ordinary End Sites such as businesses and homes, should be allocated enough for multiple subnets. The overall recommendation globally, from the designers of IPv6, is to allocate a /48 to all End Sites regardless of their size, unless you are CERTAIN that there will NEVER be more than one subnet at the site. So even though RIPE policy leaves it wide open, there is still such a thing as best practice, and there is guidance from other sources. One of those sources is ARIN policy in which they suggest that it is acceptable to assign a /56 to End Sites which are homes or individual apartments. They did this because cable ISPs were concerned that allocating a /48 to every home would be too wasteful. I believe that American cable companies have to allocate IP addresses for every home that is reachable by their cable system even though many customers will use DSL or dialup or wifi Internet access from another company. It would be nice to see an IPv6 addressing best practice document that covers all these areas, whether they are RIR policy, technical or administrative issues. > So, in answer to the original question, 30m /64s is fine if > that's what is needed and 30m /56s is fine if that's what is > needed and 30m /48s is fine if that's what is needed. > There is a presumption of subsidiarity in the policy text, > putting the choice into local hands. Seems to me that the question was not as vague as your answer implies. The writer referred to 30 million DSL, Cable modem or mobile users. If those really are 30m DSL or cable modem users, then /64 is NOT the right answer. /56 is what is needed for homes, and /48 is needed for businesses. There is no advantage to the ISP to ever allocate less than /56, except to very special sites where they are certain that there will never be more than one subnet. For example a fibre amplifier site might get a /64 or a city traffic light control station, or a kiosk on the street. This is an area where more guidance is needed complete with real-world examples to help people understand how it should work. --Michael Dillon From gert at space.net Wed Apr 30 17:12:45 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:12:45 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up In-Reply-To: References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D707915B21DC@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <20080430151245.GY11038@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 04:05:23PM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > Ok, it has changed and I did not notice it. By the way this is TERRIBLE > English. Parentheses are no substitute for clear language. Unfortunately, too many of us are not english native speakers. So we *do* welcome textual improvements during the policy development process... Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Apr 30 17:28:55 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:28:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up In-Reply-To: <20080430151245.GY11038@Space.Net> References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D707915B21DC@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <20080430151245.GY11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: > > Ok, it has changed and I did not notice it. By the way this is > > TERRIBLE English. Parentheses are no substitute for clear language. > > Unfortunately, too many of us are not english native speakers. So we > *do* welcome textual improvements during the policy > development process... People from Northern European countries often write better English than native speakers do. In any case, the word "English" has too many meanings and is ambiguous. I should have said that this was terrible "grammar" or terrible "wording". It would be the same if the text was written in French or German. --Michael Dillon Ich komme in Berlin an, Sontags Abend. ? bient?t! From turchanyi.geza at gmail.com Wed Apr 30 21:08:24 2008 From: turchanyi.geza at gmail.com (Turchanyi Geza) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:08:24 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Joking follow-up, second round Message-ID: Hi, Many thank for your comments in the first round. I appreciated that most of you read my text and commented only after reading as a whole. Those who listened me at RIPE 55 had been in better position. Let me clarify some details: I fully agree that the final document should not use the term "dummy" and "expert". However, these words emphasize the difference between different class of users. 1, Actually an IP address of a DSL user is not in the RIPE database, expect in the very exceptional case when the DSL user have a fix IPv4 address, may be even a subnet. 2, There are many ways to allocate IPv6 network for DSL users; however, it is hopeless to create database entries for them. The reasons are not only technical, but political. With IPv4 most of the DSL users had pseudo-anonym IPv4 addresses, their contact details had been known only by their ISP (and by the police, eventually), and the ISP is not allowed at all to publish the user data in any open database. 3, My suggestion was at RIPE 55 (and in my previous letter): let's do something similar in case of IPv6 what we have done with IPv4. "pseudo" dynamic IPv6! (Which is rather static, BTW.) 4, It is possible to allocate even /48 for every DSL users, even with the "pseudo" dynamic IPv6 allocation mechanism, however, why should we do it? If an "anonym" DSL user could use the same amount of the address space than a RIPE registered DSL user then nobody will register its address space in the database! 5, The IPv6 address space is huge, however, if we do not know who is using it then we will loose it soon. 6, Therefore my suggestion was amends previous policies (what were fine for the "experts", knowing what an IP address is and what a subnet is). 7, I still propose a common policy: how to distinguish between an "anonym" DSL user and a "registered" one. My proposal is: an "anonym" DSL user should receive a minimum IPv6 allocation. In this case the "minimum" is one subnet (/64) or, if there are automatically usable subnets for special purpose then the minimum size might include those subnets. If a DSL user need more then should fill an address request, and registered. 8, I also would prefer if the "anonym" DSL users would share a visible different address space than the registered one. If IANA would reserve a prefix (preferably a /16) for the "anonym" DSL (mobile, CATV, etc) users, then the RIRs could allocate big pools from this prefix to ISPs using different allocation criteria than for the "registered" IPv6 networks. Back to the AS-local IPv4 address space concept: Private address space have to be unique within a routing domain, AS-local address space is unique within the given Autonomous System. (A group of autonomous Systems might share even this address space, but this is the exception, and not the rule.) I do think that the AS-local address pool can be created as a collaborative effort. IANA, ISPs can lease address blocks for this pool. This is not trading, but still a reallocation! Any reallocation policy should allow creation of a common address pool! It is easier to allocate "automatic" and "anonym" IPv6 network for DSL users if we have a big enough, better routable IPv4 address pool, an AS-local address pool. Please read also my proposals: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-jokes.pdf and my presentation: ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes-half-proposal.pdf Many thanks for your attention, Geza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: