From alexlh at ripe.net Thu Jul 3 12:25:26 2008 From: alexlh at ripe.net (Alex Le Heux) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:25:26 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE NCC will begin allocating from 188/8 Message-ID: <1B3A9C94-7005-49A8-A8BB-563F3F7079FD@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The IANA and the RIRs are working on an ongoing basis to verify and correct registration data of legacy address space to identify free space in these blocks. As a result of this work the RIPE NCC will begin allocating from 188/8 in future. The minimum allocation size for 188/8 has been set at /21. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-434.html Please also note that three "pilot" prefixes will be announced from 188/8. These prefixes are: 188.0.0.0/16 188.0.0.0/21 188.0.0.0/24 They will all originate in AS12654. The following pingable addresses will available in these blocks: 188.0.8.1 188.0.1.1 188.0.0.1 More information on this "pilot" activity is available in the document "De-Bogonising New Address Blocks", which can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-351.html Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC From mueller at syr.edu Sun Jul 6 12:20:05 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 06:20:05 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901E0DC6B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Colleagues: I have prepared a paper on address transfer policy which will be released soon. It is now being reviewed. Due to RIPE's impending July 9 comment deadline I am sending the abstract of the paper to this list. Anyone interested in receiving a copy of the paper can contact me privately and I will send a copy when it is finished. If you have expertise in the economics of addressing or other virtual resources I'd be happy to send an advance draft for review. Of course, we can also discuss and elaborate here on some of the conclusions presented. Dr. Milton Mueller, Professor, Syracuse University School Of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology IPv4 Address Markets and the Regional Internet Address Registries. Abstract We are running out of Internet addresses. This paper evaluates address transfer policies that Internet governance agencies are considering as a response to the depletion of the IPv4 address space. The paper focuses on proposals to allow organizations holding IPv4 addresses to sell address blocks to other organizations willing to buy them. This paper analyzes the economics of the proposed transfer policies, and conducts a systematic comparison of the policies proposed in the three main world Internet regions. It concludes that: * Address transfer markets offer a pragmatic solution to the problem of reclaiming a substantial amount of unused IP address space and of re-allocating addresses to their most efficient uses * The risks of instituting well-designed address transfer policies are small when compared to the potential benefits. The change is less radical than it appears. * A failure to legitimize address transfer markets would create substantial risks of the institutionalization of gray or black markets in IPv4 address resources, leading to a deterioration of accurate registration and administration of the legacy address space. This could have severe negative implications for Internet security. * The need for a transfer policy stands on its own and should not be considered part of a transition plan to the new Internet version protocol version 6. We do not know how long or even whether the global Internet will succeed migrating to IPv6. It would therefore be irresponsible to base IPv4 management policies on an assumption that such a migration will take place. * The proposed address transfer policies being considered by RIPE and APNIC are more liberal than ARIN's. Most of the legacy IPv4 address space is in North America; thus, the policies ARIN adopts have the most importance and should be formulated with the good of the global Internet in mind. RIPE, ARIN and APNIC should strive to harmonize their transfer policies and (in the longer term) make inter-regional transfers possible. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kelaidi at ote.gr Wed Jul 9 15:26:02 2008 From: kelaidi at ote.gr (Kelaidi Christina) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 16:26:02 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) Message-ID: Dear colleagues Regarding the policy proposal 2007-08: strong arguments in favour and against this policy proposal have been raised by a large number of members of the Address Policy working group mailing list. ETNO has raised a number of issues, including significant concerns regarding the possible impact of this proposal. ? ETNO's main concerns relate to: ? 1) the potential impact of an IPv4 market; and, 2) ensuring the stability of the IP addressing bottom-up policy development processes. ? In particular ETNO has mentioned that facilitating a market that attaches an intrinsic "value" to an IP address would engage competition authorities, policymakers.? The emergence of market forces on addressing policy will raise legal issues that could have detrimental impact on the successful bottom-up processes that keep the Internet community from being engaged in discussions regarding intervention or new models of governmental control. ? ETNO is convinced that allowing for transfers within a single RIR region will not result in the release of significant -- or, long-term -- blocks of address space available for new entrants in the addressing community.?Even so, it is important to?maintain?the transfer policy that addresses the situation where addresses are being transferred between organisations in situations such as mergers or acquisitions. ? ETNO believes that any transfer policy should provide a number of safeguards. Specifically, ETNO believes that several of the criteria set currently for?allocation of IPv4 addresses should be implemented during transfers, e.g. all IP address transfer requests "should?be?approved by the regional registry. If any assignment is found to be based on false information, the registry may invalidate the request and return the assigned addresses back to the pool of free addresses for later assignment". ? The proposed policy 2008-07 does not provide according to ETNO sufficient safeguards and therefore ETNO could not support the 2007-08 Policy Proposal, Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources, as it stands. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues WG Chairperson From gert at space.net Thu Jul 10 09:28:31 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:28:31 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> References: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20080710072830.GD11038@Space.Net> Hi APWG folks, this proposal keep being difficult for our processes. We got a rebound from the WG chair collective, because they felt that there was no explicit consensus for version *2* of the proposal, which had some signficant changes (inclusion of ERX in the text). Now this is v3, trying to work out the last wrinkles, and get it through the process properly, and we got *NO* comments on it. "No comments" does not mean "consensus". It means "nobody is interested, leave us alone with this". I think that this is a very important milestone, and it needs good backing by the community (or if you don't want it, it should be explicitely torn down). The main difference v2 -> v3 is that ERX space has been completely taken out [because RIPE has no legal basis to enforce anything - we'll come back to this with a new proposal], and that there is a *new* document that describes what to do with existing end-user assignments - which has exactly the same intent as v2, but we can't put requirements for existing assignments into a "new assignments" documents, so this needed cleaning up. So - please read the documents, as referenced in Ana's mail below, and then explicitely voice agreement or disagreement with 2007-01 v3. thanks, Gert Doering, APWG Chair On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 04:22:44PM +0200, Ana Matic wrote: > PDP Number: 2007-01 > Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC > > Dear Colleagues, > > The new version of the proposal described in 2007-01 has now been published > and is moved back to Review Period. > > Also, the new draft document "Contractual Requirements for Provider > Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region" has been > published. This document describes the contractual requirements necessary > for End Users > of provider independent resources and also speaks to the status of > pre-existing assignments. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html > > and the draft documents at: > > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft-2007-01-v3.html > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-421-draft.html > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-389-draft.html > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft-2007-01-v3.html > > We encourage you to review this revised policy proposal and the draft > documents and send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 24 > July 2008. > > Regards, > > Ana Matic > RIPE NCC > 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 fw at deneb.enyo.de Thu Jul 10 10:11:59 2008 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:11:59 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> (Ana Matic's message of "Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:22:44 +0200") References: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> Message-ID: <87tzeyma40.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * Ana Matic: > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html What's the status of EARLY-REGISTRATION space with regards to sub-assignment and the establishment of contracts? > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft-2007-01-v3.html I don't think recovering resources from unwilling end users is a good way to spend the membership fees. (I don't speak for any member, though.) And unless there is a clear incentive (which I don't see--the thread of revoking the assignment is not particularly convincing), a lot of end users will be unwilling. From gert at space.net Thu Jul 10 11:06:44 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:06:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <87tzeyma40.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> References: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> <87tzeyma40.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: <20080710090644.GG11038@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:11:59AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html > > What's the status of EARLY-REGISTRATION space with regards to > sub-assignment and the establishment of contracts? Well, the "new document" draft very clearly states this: > > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft-2007-01-v3.html ----------- quote ---------- 1.1 Scope This policy document describes the contractual requirements for End Users of provider independent resources which have been assigned either directly by the RIPE NCC or through a Local Internet Registry in the RIPE NCC Service area. ----------- quote ---------- As ERX space has not been assigned by the RIPE NCC or a RIPE LIR, it is not covered by v3 of the 2007-01 proposal. We will come up with a new proposal how to handle ERX space (which is not yet written and thus cannot be discussed yet). Regarding sub-assignments of ERX space: I'm not sure exactly how the policy is right now, but since we're not going to touch ERX anyway, so nothing would change there. > I don't think recovering resources from unwilling end users is a good > way to spend the membership fees. (I don't speak for any member, > though.) And unless there is a clear incentive (which I don't see--the > thread of revoking the assignment is not particularly convincing), a lot > of end users will be unwilling. One of the incentives would be "without a clear contractual relationship, we can't give out a certificate for this resource". The main focus for the implementation is "new resource assignments", of course, but for consistency reasons it's important to have a plan how to tackle existing stuff. 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 ms at man-da.de Thu Jul 10 11:14:11 2008 From: ms at man-da.de (Marcus Stoegbauer) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:14:11 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> References: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4875D2E3.5010508@man-da.de> Ana Matic wrote: > PDP Number: 2007-01 > Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC > > Dear Colleagues, > > The new version of the proposal described in 2007-01 has now been > published and is moved back to Review Period. > > Also, the new draft document "Contractual Requirements for Provider > Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region" has been > published. This document describes the contractual requirements > necessary for End Users > of provider independent resources and also speaks to the status of > pre-existing assignments. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html > > and the draft documents at: > I fully support the meaning of this proposal and think it is the right way to make sure that the RIPE DB reflects the real world. However, I think I noticed a small problem in http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft-2007-01-v3.html The new text in "9.0 PA vs. PI Address Space" states: |The policies stated above about the PI address space covers all non PA |address space maintained in the RIPE database, except address space |marked as Early Registration (ERX) and address space marked as NON-SET. This somewhat conflicts with: |1.1 Scope | |This document describes the policies for the responsible management of |globally unique IPv4 Internet address space in the RIPE NCC service |region. The policies documented here apply to all IPv4 address space |allocated and assigned by the RIPE NCC. Take 130.83.0.0/16 for example. It is "ASSIGNED PI" now, but it has never been assigned by the RIPE NCC (see RFC 1117, the assignment is first mentioned there). Of course this can easily be fixed, for example by changing the first sentence of the above quoted new text to: The policies stated above about the PI address space covers all non PA address space allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC and maintained in the RIPE database, ... Marcus -- man-da.de GmbH, AS8365 Phone: +49 6151 16-6956 Petersenstr. 30 Fax: +49 6151 16-3050 D-64287 Darmstadt e-mail: ms at man-da.de Gesch?ftsf?hrer Dr. J?rgen Ohrnberger AG Darmstadt, HRB 94 84 From shane at time-travellers.org Thu Jul 10 11:58:42 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:58:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <87tzeyma40.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> References: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> <87tzeyma40.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> Florian, [ I realize the contents of this post may be somewhat controversial. In fact, I expect most people to oppose the basic ideas. ] On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:11:59AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft-2007-01-v3.html > > I don't think recovering resources from unwilling end users is a > good way to spend the membership fees. (I don't speak for any > member, though.) And unless there is a clear incentive (which I > don't see--the thread of revoking the assignment is not particularly > convincing), a lot of end users will be unwilling. I also don't speak for any member, but I think revoking assignments is a fantastic idea. In fact, I don't see how it makes sense to do otherwise. Someone claims to be the authorized user of some addresses. *Nobody* has any relationship wth this person. The only evidence you have is that at one time in the past someone was assigned the addresses. Sure, I can call the people peering with the originator of the advertisement, and see why they are carrying the traffic. They might or might not be willing to give me that information, or privacy or business reasons. Also, all because it is convenient for them to carry the advertisements does not mean somebody else won't do the same thing for the same space for a different originator. And finally, we have a perfectly workable system so I don't *have* to go through this kind of nonsense: the RIR system. If people are unwilling to sign a contract which basically says, "I am using this address space", then take their space back. It's not scary, really. Revokation is a good thing. -- Shane From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Jul 10 13:01:49 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:01:49 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080710072830.GD11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: > The main difference v2 -> v3 is that ERX space has been > completely taken out [because RIPE has no legal basis to > enforce anything - we'll come back to this with a new > proposal], and that there is a *new* document that describes > what to do with existing end-user assignments - which has > exactly the same intent as v2, but we can't put requirements > for existing assignments into a "new assignments" documents, > so this needed cleaning up. I still think that we are making this more complex than it needs to be and the language is horrible. How hard is it to say: All applicants for Provider Independent resources must have a signed contract with RIPE or with an LIR before receiving such resources. Existing holders of Provider Independent resources received from RIPE LIRs or from RIPE, must sign a contract with RIPE or with an LIR before 01Dec2009 or RIPE will take back the resources. One improvement would be to give the standard contract a name like ARIN does. They call their contract a Registration Services Agreement or RSA. This allows them to say things in plain English such as "An RSA must be signed before ARIN will issue resources to the applicant". If we use the term RSA, then it seems to me this policy is trying to say: - All applicants for Provider Independent resources must sign an RSA before receiving any resources. - Any existing holders of Provider Independent resources must sign an RSA before The-End-Date or RIPE will take back their resources. - An RSA can be signed with RIPE or with an LIR. - If a PI resource holder ceases their business relationship with an LIR, then they must sign an RSA with a new LIR or with RIPE within 2 months or RIPE will take back their resources. - RIPE will provide a standard RSA contract for LIRs to use. - The RSA will include: - point a - point b - etc. But the language is unclear so I'm not sure. Also there are some things that don't make sense to me. Why is the applicant responsible for making sure that a contract is signed. RIPE or the LIR should be responsible for making sure that a contract is in place before resources are issued. And RIPE or the LIRs should be responsible for chasing existing resource holders to get contracts signed. So, in general I support the ideas behind this policy. I just wish that it was structured differently and written more clearly. --Michael Dillon P.S. my comments about language have nothing to do with the fact that it is in English. I would say the same things if it were in French or German. From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Thu Jul 10 13:28:16 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:28:16 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) References: Message-ID: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC322FCE@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Dear all, With the review period coming to an end (again), I would like to place some remarks about the discussion on 2007-08. 2007-08, for everything that it's claimed to be, is a very simple policy proposal. It's a proposal that hardly even touches on addresses, it's actually a registration rather than an address proposal. And in that respect we all agree. We all want the database to remain a) accurate and b) usable. Allowing third party transactions to be reflected in the database achieves the first, setting limits to what and how often (minimal size, time between mutations) achieves the latter. The rest of the discussion is on positions, perceived implications and forward looking statements. We're never going to agree on a single picture for the future so let's not try to. The one thing that we all do know and feel is that the future's going to be different from the current reality. Based on this, I would like to ask the chairs to move the process forward for this proposal. And as for the ideas about giving the RIRs some sort of 'stick' to enforce usage of address space or worse, routing: consider for yourself for a while what implications there might be to an RIR actually being able to force something off the net. Comparable to the position a domain name registry had for 'wikileaks.org', just to name a recent example. I can see the queue of lawyers line up already... Best, Remco Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Jul 10 15:32:05 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:32:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC322FCE@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: > The rest of the discussion is on positions, perceived > implications and forward looking statements. We're never > going to agree on a single picture for the future so let's > not try to. The one thing that we all do know and feel is > that the future's going to be different from the current reality. You're right! > Based on this, I would like to ask the chairs to move the > process forward for this proposal. I'd like the chairs to throw out the whole proposal because it tries to predict the future and solve a problem that does not even exist yet. And might never exist. We don't have consensus on this and the points raised by Sander Steffan in his email on the 13th of June, have not been answered yet. Here is Sander's email: From lutz at iks-jena.de Thu Jul 10 09:55:44 2008 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:55:44 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) References: <20080710072830.GD11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: * Gert Doering wrote: > Now this is v3, trying to work out the last wrinkles, and get it through > the process properly, and we got *NO* comments on it. In order to prevent a drop of the proposal soley by not commenting it: First of all, I support this proposal. Historic experience shows, that direct assigned ressources are lost, because nobody can determine who is using the ressource currently. This 2007-1 (v3) solves this issue for new assignments. Especially the point of forbitten subassignments make me happy. To tell a story from this week: A customer changed his internet connection to us and choosed to exchange his PI to PA. I run into trouble giving the PI back: The inetnum won't disappear for months. On request I was told, that this PI space was never given out, but part of an larger block. Fortunely the admins of the assigned PI space does exists and respond, so the inetnum could be deleted this week. It's interesting to see, that there was no connection between the assigned PI and the subassigned PI anymore. The was a reseller chain for at least three companies, all of them does not exist anymore (one was gone in 1997). In summary 2007-1 (v3) does solve a real issue, so I support it. From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jul 10 13:00:59 2008 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:00:59 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] (no subject) References: <20080710100005.26082.63188.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901884158@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Dear Kelaidi: In the course of preparing the analysis of transfer markets I carefully reviewed the ETNO paper. I must confess that the primary substantive argument in it seems to be "we have never done it this way before, therefore it is bad." Let me engage with the idea that allowing transfers somehow brings in governments and governmentality. This is a very strange argument, and I am not sure I understand it. The RIRs maintain a private sector-based, contractual model of governance. Governments are currently involved, via the courts, as enforcers and interpreters of the contracts. I am sure you would agree with this. Now, if the terms of RIR contracts are modified to allow transfers, I do not see any fundamental change in the character of the relationship between RIRs and governments. Nor do I see any big change in the way the RIRs set address policies. I just see a different policy. When you talk about competition policy, perhaps you mean that acquisition or use of addresses could be abused by a market participant in an attempt to exclude competitors. But if that turns out to be true, then what is wrong with competition law being applied? It is also true that if government authorites believed that _current_ RIR policies were somehow discriminatory or anti-competitive then they could intervene. For example, suppose there is no transfer market, and telephone companies or other ISPs used their control of increasingly scarce IPv4 address pools in a way that competition authorities believed prevented competitive entry into the market. If they could make a case for that under existing law, they could intervene in RIR activities. Nothing stops competition policy authorites from scrutinizing what RIRs and ISPs do now. If your peering agreements, or your mergers and acquisitions, or your price-setting activities run afoul of competition law you will be dealing with government. nothing the RIRs can do can change that. In short, the presence or absence of a transfer policy has nothing to do with the propensity of governmental authorities to intervene. What _might_ make them more likely to intervene in the new environment is the increasing _scarcity_ of address resources, which makes access to addresses more contentious. That scarcity will exist whether or not we adopt a transfer policy. From: "Kelaidi Christina" To: Dear colleagues Regarding the policy proposal 2007-08: strong arguments in favour and against this policy proposal have been raised by a large number of members of the Address Policy working group mailing list. ETNO has raised a number of issues, including significant concerns regarding the possible impact of this proposal. ETNO's main concerns relate to: 1) the potential impact of an IPv4 market; and, 2) ensuring the stability of the IP addressing bottom-up policy development processes. In particular ETNO has mentioned that facilitating a market that = attaches an intrinsic "value" to an IP address would engage competition = authorities, policymakers.=A0 The emergence of market forces on = addressing policy will raise legal issues that could have detrimental = impact on the successful bottom-up processes that keep the Internet = community from being engaged in discussions regarding intervention or = new models of governmental control. =A0 ETNO is convinced that allowing for transfers within a single RIR region = will not result in the release of significant -- or, long-term -- blocks = of address space available for new entrants in the addressing = community.=A0Even so, it is important to=A0maintain=A0the transfer = policy that addresses the situation where addresses are being = transferred between organisations in situations such as mergers or = acquisitions.=20 =A0 ETNO believes that any transfer policy should provide a number of = safeguards. Specifically, ETNO believes that several of the criteria set = currently for=A0allocation of IPv4 addresses should be implemented = during transfers, e.g. all IP address transfer requests = "should=A0be=A0approved by the regional registry. If any assignment is = found to be based on false information, the registry may invalidate the = request and return the assigned addresses back to the pool of free = addresses for later assignment".=20 =A0 The proposed policy 2008-07 does not provide according to ETNO = sufficient safeguards and therefore ETNO could not support the 2007-08 = Policy Proposal, Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources, as = it stands. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues WG Chairperson --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:28:31 +0200 From: Gert Doering To: Ana Matic Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Hi APWG folks, this proposal keep being difficult for our processes. We got a rebound from the WG chair collective, because they felt that there was no explicit consensus for version *2* of the proposal, which had some signficant changes (inclusion of ERX in the text). Now this is v3, trying to work out the last wrinkles, and get it through the process properly, and we got *NO* comments on it. "No comments" does not mean "consensus". It means "nobody is interested, leave us alone with this". I think that this is a very important milestone, and it needs good backing by the community (or if you don't want it, it should be explicitely torn down). The main difference v2 -> v3 is that ERX space has been completely taken out [because RIPE has no legal basis to enforce anything - we'll come back to this with a new proposal], and that there is a *new* document that describes what to do with existing end-user assignments - which has exactly the same intent as v2, but we can't put requirements for existing assignments into a "new assignments" documents, so this needed cleaning up. So - please read the documents, as referenced in Ana's mail below, and then explicitely voice agreement or disagreement with 2007-01 v3. thanks, Gert Doering, APWG Chair On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 04:22:44PM +0200, Ana Matic wrote: > PDP Number: 2007-01 > Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC > > Dear Colleagues, > > The new version of the proposal described in 2007-01 has now been published > and is moved back to Review Period. > > Also, the new draft document "Contractual Requirements for Provider > Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region" has been > published. This document describes the contractual requirements necessary > for End Users > of provider independent resources and also speaks to the status of > pre-existing assignments. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html > > and the draft documents at: > > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft-2007-01-v3.html > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-421-draft.html > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-389-draft.html > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft-2007-01-v3.html > > We encourage you to review this revised policy proposal and the draft > documents and send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 24 > July 2008. > > Regards, > > Ana Matic > RIPE NCC > 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 --__--__-- Message: 3 From: Florian Weimer To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:11:59 +0200 * Ana Matic: > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html What's the status of EARLY-REGISTRATION space with regards to sub-assignment and the establishment of contracts? > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft-2007-01-v3.html I don't think recovering resources from unwilling end users is a good way to spend the membership fees. (I don't speak for any member, though.) And unless there is a clear incentive (which I don't see--the thread of revoking the assignment is not particularly convincing), a lot of end users will be unwilling. --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:06:44 +0200 From: Gert Doering To: Florian Weimer Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Hi, On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:11:59AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html > > What's the status of EARLY-REGISTRATION space with regards to > sub-assignment and the establishment of contracts? Well, the "new document" draft very clearly states this: > > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft-2007-01-v3.html ----------- quote ---------- 1.1 Scope This policy document describes the contractual requirements for End Users of provider independent resources which have been assigned either directly by the RIPE NCC or through a Local Internet Registry in the RIPE NCC Service area. ----------- quote ---------- As ERX space has not been assigned by the RIPE NCC or a RIPE LIR, it is not covered by v3 of the 2007-01 proposal. We will come up with a new proposal how to handle ERX space (which is not yet written and thus cannot be discussed yet). Regarding sub-assignments of ERX space: I'm not sure exactly how the policy is right now, but since we're not going to touch ERX anyway, so nothing would change there. > I don't think recovering resources from unwilling end users is a good > way to spend the membership fees. (I don't speak for any member, > though.) And unless there is a clear incentive (which I don't see--the > thread of revoking the assignment is not particularly convincing), a lot > of end users will be unwilling. One of the incentives would be "without a clear contractual relationship, we can't give out a certificate for this resource". The main focus for the implementation is "new resource assignments", of course, but for consistency reasons it's important to have a plan how to tackle existing stuff. 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 --__--__-- Message: 5 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:14:11 +0200 From: Marcus Stoegbauer To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Ana Matic wrote: > PDP Number: 2007-01 > Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC > > Dear Colleagues, > > The new version of the proposal described in 2007-01 has now been > published and is moved back to Review Period. > > Also, the new draft document "Contractual Requirements for Provider > Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region" has been > published. This document describes the contractual requirements > necessary for End Users > of provider independent resources and also speaks to the status of > pre-existing assignments. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html > > and the draft documents at: > I fully support the meaning of this proposal and think it is the right way to make sure that the RIPE DB reflects the real world. However, I think I noticed a small problem in http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft-2007-01-v3.html The new text in "9.0 PA vs. PI Address Space" states: |The policies stated above about the PI address space covers all non PA |address space maintained in the RIPE database, except address space |marked as Early Registration (ERX) and address space marked as NON-SET. This somewhat conflicts with: |1.1 Scope | |This document describes the policies for the responsible management of |globally unique IPv4 Internet address space in the RIPE NCC service |region. The policies documented here apply to all IPv4 address space |allocated and assigned by the RIPE NCC. Take 130.83.0.0/16 for example. It is "ASSIGNED PI" now, but it has never been assigned by the RIPE NCC (see RFC 1117, the assignment is first mentioned there). Of course this can easily be fixed, for example by changing the first sentence of the above quoted new text to: The policies stated above about the PI address space covers all non PA address space allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC and maintained in the RIPE database, ... Marcus -- man-da.de GmbH, AS8365 Phone: +49 6151 16-6956 Petersenstr. 30 Fax: +49 6151 16-3050 D-64287 Darmstadt e-mail: ms at man-da.de Gesch?ftsf?hrer Dr. J?rgen Ohrnberger AG Darmstadt, HRB 94 84 --__--__-- Message: 6 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:58:42 +0200 From: Shane Kerr To: Florian Weimer Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Florian, [ I realize the contents of this post may be somewhat controversial. In fact, I expect most people to oppose the basic ideas. ] On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:11:59AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft-2007-01-v3.html > > I don't think recovering resources from unwilling end users is a > good way to spend the membership fees. (I don't speak for any > member, though.) And unless there is a clear incentive (which I > don't see--the thread of revoking the assignment is not particularly > convincing), a lot of end users will be unwilling. I also don't speak for any member, but I think revoking assignments is a fantastic idea. In fact, I don't see how it makes sense to do otherwise. Someone claims to be the authorized user of some addresses. *Nobody* has any relationship wth this person. The only evidence you have is that at one time in the past someone was assigned the addresses. Sure, I can call the people peering with the originator of the advertisement, and see why they are carrying the traffic. They might or might not be willing to give me that information, or privacy or business reasons. Also, all because it is convenient for them to carry the advertisements does not mean somebody else won't do the same thing for the same space for a different originator. And finally, we have a perfectly workable system so I don't *have* to go through this kind of nonsense: the RIR system. If people are unwilling to sign a contract which basically says, "I am using this address space", then take their space back. It's not scary, really. Revokation is a good thing. -- Shane End of address-policy-wg Digest -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 17837 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Thu Jul 10 16:26:59 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:26:59 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) References: Message-ID: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC322FD3@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Michael Dillon wrote: > We don't have consensus on this and the points raised by Sander Steffan in his email on the 13th of June, have not been answered yet. Here is Sander's email: You know what, I'll indulge and repeat what I've been telling the past 2 RIPE meetings: Randy Bush: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00 355.html - Transfering address space still assigned to end users Is not a part of this proposal. An additional proposal could accommodate this if desired. - Inter-region transfers Explicitly not a part of this proposal. An additional proposal could accommodate this if desired. Per Heldal: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00 354.html - Keep demonstrated need criteria for address space by receiving LIR Fundamentally - what is more important? Keeping an accurate and usable database or setting limits to what people can and can not do without enforcement options? (One of the very few sticks the NCC currently has is denying people more allocations - if there's none more to be handed out, what do you expect to happen ?) I'm not averse to extra limitations in transferring space, what I DO disagree with is adding them to this current proposal. Time is not on our side. - Legal implications for RIPE NCC Anything we do, including doing nothing, has potential legal implications. - Viable plans for reclaiming space to continue with current policies for a significant time? The one viable plan I can come up with is to have ICANN buy back a lot of space using the money they got from opening the DNS root :) No transfer, reclaim or other policy can replace the global free pool as a sufficient resource for new allocations. - Possiblity of setting up LIRs for hoarding Is possible and viable today. Everyone can set up an LIR and get an initial allocation at the very least. RIPE NCC has very interesting presentations every meeting about the growth in membership. Jay Daley: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00 366.html - Seller can choose who to sell to, not transparent Life isn't fair. Not knowing who buyer and seller are, or not knowing that a transaction has taken place is even less transparent. - Discrimination of LIRs in developing countries in the RIPE region What do you think would work and be less discriminatory? How about transferring address space to a needy LIR in a developing country as a (tax deductible !) act of charity? Not being 'legally' able to get more space discriminates against all who respect the rules. - Reclaim/reuse could be more efficient than transferring Given the fact that it requires more parties to actually do something, and they don't get a return for doing that, I don't see how that would work. - Faster depletion because of hoarding And nobody will hoard space if they're not entitled by RIR policy to transfer. Of course. - Legal implications for RIPE NCC See above. - Degradation of RIPE DB because of rival trading exchange databases ..is exactly what we're trying to prevent here. Rival databases only evolve if we set limits on what you can do with ours. If RIPE runs an accurate, usable and public database there's no business case for a rival database. Eric Schmidt: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00 381.html - Breaks the current policy that unused address blocks return to RIPE NCC Which doesn't happen on any scale worth mentioning. Only when VERY significant effort is made by IANA/RIRs, space is returned. - Transfers open up more possibilities for abuse Not registering third party transfers open more possibilities for hidden abuse. ETNO: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00 293.html - A transfer system can not ensure a process that is open, transparent and equitable Given any distribution scheme for a scarce resource, some people will always be disappointed. I'm not aiming for a perfect solution because there isn't one. Protocol DESIGN requires perfection, protocol REDESIGN requires pragmatism. - Negative impact on routing tables Any increase in the efficiency in which we use the v4 address space will increase fragmentation and thus have an impact on the routing table. This is unrelated to transfer policies. - Keep demonstrated need criteria for address space by receiving LIR See above. But again, all of this is very interesting stuff but has little direct relation to the text of 2007-08 or the rationale behind it. Best, Remco "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in a time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." - Dante Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com From shane at time-travellers.org Thu Jul 10 17:34:56 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:34:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080710072830.GD11038@Space.Net> References: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> <20080710072830.GD11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20080710153456.GA8318@borg.c-l-i.net> Gert, On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 09:28:31AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > So - please read the documents, as referenced in Ana's mail below, and then > explicitely voice agreement or disagreement with 2007-01 v3. I support the proposal, with the documents as they in the v3 draft. -- Shane From leo.vegoda at icann.org Fri Jul 11 09:56:11 2008 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:56:11 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: Shane, On 10/07/2008 11:58, "Shane Kerr" wrote: [...] > If people are unwilling to sign a contract which basically says, "I am > using this address space", then take their space back. It's not scary, > really. > > Revokation is a good thing. What would you propose the RIPE NCC do with revoked address space assignments? Should they just keep them in a "sin bin" or should they allocate or assign the address space to other network operators? Regards, Leo Vegoda From randy at psg.com Fri Jul 11 09:58:41 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:58:41 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> > What would you propose the RIPE NCC do with revoked address space > assignments? Should they just keep them in a "sin bin" or should they > allocate or assign the address space to other network operators? sell them at a price high enough to pay for some extremely large lawyer bills. randy From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Jul 11 10:02:36 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:02:36 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC322FD3@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: > Fundamentally - what is more important? Keeping an accurate > and usable database Most of the innacuracy in the database is due to poor processes in the LIRs and laziness. Not because black market transfers are filling it up. > or setting limits to what people can and > can not do without enforcement options? (One of the very few > sticks the NCC currently has is denying people more > allocations - if there's none more to be handed out, what do > you expect to happen ?) When the stick is gone, it is gone. Transfer policies will not change this. > I'm not averse to extra limitations > in transferring space, what I DO disagree with is adding them > to this current proposal. Time is not on our side. Neither is science. When the address space is all used up there will be no more free addresses. Transfer policies will not magically create free addresses to be transferred. In your long list of points that you answered you forgot the most important one. IPv6 has lots of free addresses and it is increasingly better supported by vendors. Organizations who are concerned about an address shortage should not put their hope in transfer policies but should instead deploy IPv6 as soon as possible, and put tremendous pressure on vendors to fix the remaining issues. Reading between the lines, it seems to me that ETNO members are opposed to the transfer policy because they've already figured out that it makes more sense to invest in IPv6. But since the value of the network arises from everyone being connected, they want everyone to join the IPv6 party sooner rather than later. --Michael Dillon From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Jul 10 12:17:20 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:17:20 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period(Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> Message-ID: <4875E1AF.D32B16DB@ix.netcom.com> Randy and all, Is your suggestion a joke? I hope so. If not, it certainly isn't wise or ethical as such would only be passing on to unsuspecting recipients problems that were not originated by them. Bad policy! Randy Bush wrote: > > What would you propose the RIPE NCC do with revoked address space > > assignments? Should they just keep them in a "sin bin" or should they > > allocate or assign the address space to other network operators? > > sell them at a price high enough to pay for some extremely large lawyer > bills. > > randy Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Fri Jul 11 11:36:28 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:36:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) References: Message-ID: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC322FDD@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Michael Dillon wrote: > In your long list of points that you answered you forgot the > most important one. IPv6 has lots of free addresses and it > is increasingly better supported by vendors. Organizations > who are concerned about an address shortage should not put > their hope in transfer policies but should instead deploy > IPv6 as soon as possible, and put tremendous pressure on > vendors to fix the remaining issues. I didn't forget that - I just think it's irrelevant for this discussion. If you need v4, you need v4. Given the fantastic migration options for moving from v4 to v6, you'll need v4 until you don't depend on it anymore to have your traffic delivered. Migrating to v6 means that you either run dual stack for a long time or have somebody else run dual stack for you. Best, Remco Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com From heldal at eml.cc Fri Jul 11 11:49:41 2008 From: heldal at eml.cc (Per Heldal) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:49:41 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC322FD3@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC322FD3@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: <1215769781.27476.52.camel@obelix.sandbu> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 16:26 +0200, Remco van Mook wrote: > Per Heldal: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00 > 354.html > - Keep demonstrated need criteria for address space by receiving LIR > > Fundamentally - what is more important? Keeping an accurate and usable > database or setting limits to what people can and can not do without > enforcement options? (One of the very few sticks the NCC currently has > is denying people more allocations - if there's none more to be handed > out, what do you expect to happen ?) I'm not averse to extra limitations > in transferring space, what I DO disagree with is adding them to this > current proposal. Time is not on our side. Current policies only work because there's a carrot associated with good behaviour (allocations). When there is no more carrots there's no point trying to make any kind of rules unless we're prepared (technically and legally) to enforce them. Thus 2007-08 is pointless. We could just as well turn RIPE's IPv4 WHOIS registry into some kind of best-effort-run self-service-robot. All that remains is a requirement to be able to identify the user of any address-resources that IANA has allocated to RIPE. > > - Legal implications for RIPE NCC > > Anything we do, including doing nothing, has potential legal > implications. > > - Viable plans for reclaiming space to continue with current policies > for a > significant time? > > The one viable plan I can come up with is to have ICANN buy back a lot > of space using the money they got from opening the DNS root :) No > transfer, reclaim or other policy can replace the global free pool as a > sufficient resource for new allocations. > What I meant was to obtain reasonably reliable numbers which show how much address-space might become available for re-use given various schemes and/or pricing. I.e. for the RIRs to perform surveys towards existing LIRs and known legacy-allocation-holders as businesses analyse their markets. Policies and work to deal with a transfer-market is a waste of time and resources unless numbers are significant. Growth is king, and if v4 can't provide for growth it'll go elsewhere. > - Possiblity of setting up LIRs for hoarding > > Is possible and viable today. Everyone can set up an LIR and get an > initial allocation at the very least. RIPE NCC has very interesting > presentations every meeting about the growth in membership. > Except the suggested policy explicitly removes any regulation on the receiving LIR. Now you can't just get an initial allocation, but have the blessing to acquire 1000s with no questions asked until the existing requirements to document continued need of current blocks kicks in. Do you expect the NCC to go after those in retrospect, and that it will easier to enforce than a requirement to document need-for-space prior to the acquisition? Finally; if there's no penalty for breaking the rules, nor a significant reward for good behaviour, why bother to make rules at all? //per From berni at birkenwald.de Fri Jul 11 11:55:15 2008 From: berni at birkenwald.de (Bernhard Schmidt) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:55:15 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080710072830.GD11038@Space.Net> References: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> <20080710072830.GD11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: <48772E03.4010905@birkenwald.de> Hello, > So - please read the documents, as referenced in Ana's mail below, and then > explicitely voice agreement or disagreement with 2007-01 v3. I fully support 2007-01 *v3* in the form it has been proposed. Bernhard From shane at time-travellers.org Fri Jul 11 15:06:29 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:06:29 +0200 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: References: <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <20080711130629.GA19810@borg.c-l-i.net> Leo, On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:56:11AM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote: > > On 10/07/2008 11:58, "Shane Kerr" wrote: > > [...] > > > If people are unwilling to sign a contract which basically says, > > "I am using this address space", then take their space back. It's > > not scary, really. > > > > Revokation is a good thing. > > What would you propose the RIPE NCC do with revoked address space > assignments? Should they just keep them in a "sin bin" or should > they allocate or assign the address space to other network > operators? [ Warning: I should not be attempting to design process in a mailing list, but I can't help myself. :( ] Fortunately there are no secrets in the routing table! So, it is easy to see if any given space is being routed or not. The only time there is a problem is if revoked space is still being routed by someone. If so, then there are reasonable actions that can be taken to stop this, such as calling them and their peers and explaining the space should no longer be routed. Remember, the only thing that a PI address space holder needs to do is sign a contract with the RIPE NCC saying "I am the holder of this PI space", so it should not cause any fuss. Can someone come up with a scenario where this would be difficult or impossible for some individual or organization? Cheers, -- Shane From shane at time-travellers.org Fri Jul 11 15:08:56 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:08:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 04:58:41PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > What would you propose the RIPE NCC do with revoked address space > > assignments? Should they just keep them in a "sin bin" or should > > they allocate or assign the address space to other network > > operators? > > sell them at a price high enough to pay for some extremely large > lawyer bills. Why would there be large lawyer bills? Wouldn't it be much, MUCH cheaper to simply sign a contract with the RIPE NCC saying "I am the assignee of this space" rather than spend money on laywers? -- Shane From randy at psg.com Fri Jul 11 15:12:23 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:12:23 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <48775C37.4010003@psg.com> > Why would there be large lawyer bills? Wouldn't it be much, MUCH > cheaper to simply sign a contract with the RIPE NCC saying "I am the > assignee of this space" rather than spend money on laywers? all depends on the actual agreement. the devil is in the details. randy From randy at psg.com Fri Jul 11 15:11:41 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:11:41 +0900 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: <20080711130629.GA19810@borg.c-l-i.net> References: <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> <20080711130629.GA19810@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <48775C0D.2060409@psg.com> > Remember, the only thing that a PI address space holder needs to do is > sign a contract with the RIPE NCC saying "I am the holder of this PI > space", so it should not cause any fuss. perhaps you have not looked at arin's legacy holder agreement. check out section nine, in particular. essentially it says you give up the rights. randy From shane at time-travellers.org Fri Jul 11 16:32:02 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:32:02 +0200 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: <48775C0D.2060409@psg.com> References: <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> <20080711130629.GA19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <48775C0D.2060409@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080711143202.GA20439@borg.c-l-i.net> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:11:41PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > Remember, the only thing that a PI address space holder needs to > > do is sign a contract with the RIPE NCC saying "I am the holder of > > this PI space", so it should not cause any fuss. > > perhaps you have not looked at arin's legacy holder agreement. > check out section nine, in particular. essentially it says you give > up the rights. No thanks, I don't really have the inclination to waste my time reading legalese. ARIN is way too uptight about legalities, but I guess that reflects the culture of the region. I think the RIPE region is a bit more practical, and we can worry about making the system work better instead of who has what rights and who gets to sue who. And anyway, the current RIPE proposal (2007-01) does not cover legacy space, so I will happily ignore the problem for now. ;) -- Shane From fw at deneb.enyo.de Fri Jul 11 23:13:43 2008 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:13:43 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> (Shane Kerr's message of "Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:08:56 +0200") References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <87zloo15vc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * Shane Kerr: > Why would there be large lawyer bills? Wouldn't it be much, MUCH > cheaper to simply sign a contract with the RIPE NCC saying "I am the > assignee of this space" rather than spend money on laywers? The real fun starts when RIPE recovers address space, reassigns it, and the depossessed party starts to sue the new owner. (Please substitute mentally the correct concept for "owning".) From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 11 02:42:46 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:42:46 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <4876AC86.22FAEBFD@ix.netcom.com> Shane and all, Good point IF whomever will sign. IF not, than how does anyone expect bad IP's from being routed anyway or stolen for that matter? Shane Kerr wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 04:58:41PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > > What would you propose the RIPE NCC do with revoked address space > > > assignments? Should they just keep them in a "sin bin" or should > > > they allocate or assign the address space to other network > > > operators? > > > > sell them at a price high enough to pay for some extremely large > > lawyer bills. > > Why would there be large lawyer bills? Wouldn't it be much, MUCH > cheaper to simply sign a contract with the RIPE NCC saying "I am the > assignee of this space" rather than spend money on laywers? > > -- > Shane Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 11 02:45:38 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:45:38 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised2007-01... References: <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> <20080711130629.GA19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <48775C0D.2060409@psg.com> Message-ID: <4876AD32.F53A482E@ix.netcom.com> Randy and all, Yes, give up rights. But that doesn't preclude use necessarly now does it? Of course not. So a scheme for reclaiming that PI space seems to be in order that doesn't require legal fees. A daunting task indeed. Randy Bush wrote: > > Remember, the only thing that a PI address space holder needs to do is > > sign a contract with the RIPE NCC saying "I am the holder of this PI > > space", so it should not cause any fuss. > > perhaps you have not looked at arin's legacy holder agreement. check > out section nine, in particular. essentially it says you give up the > rights. > > randy Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 11 03:45:34 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:45:34 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87zloo15vc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: <4876BB3E.1574A2E@ix.netcom.com> Florian and all, Exactly right. Again a expected result of poor leadership, rule making, and enforcment of however poor rules that may be in place. The other problem is the ever changing of the rules/contracts that leads to confusion and begins a circular conflagration as well as a level of inconsistance of rules between RIR's. Florian Weimer wrote: > * Shane Kerr: > > > Why would there be large lawyer bills? Wouldn't it be much, MUCH > > cheaper to simply sign a contract with the RIPE NCC saying "I am the > > assignee of this space" rather than spend money on laywers? > > The real fun starts when RIPE recovers address space, reassigns it, and > the depossessed party starts to sue the new owner. > > (Please substitute mentally the correct concept for "owning".) Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From fw at deneb.enyo.de Sat Jul 12 07:50:27 2008 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:50:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) References: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> <87tzeyma40.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20080710090644.GG11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: <87d4ljtzvg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * Gert Doering: > We will come up with a new proposal how to handle ERX space (which is > not yet written and thus cannot be discussed yet). It would make sense to handle this in the same document because some LIRs have converted EARLY-REGISTRATION to to ASSIGNED PI and some didn't. >> I don't think recovering resources from unwilling end users is a good >> way to spend the membership fees. (I don't speak for any member, >> though.) And unless there is a clear incentive (which I don't see--the >> thread of revoking the assignment is not particularly convincing), a lot >> of end users will be unwilling. > > One of the incentives would be "without a clear contractual relationship, > we can't give out a certificate for this resource". What kind of certificate? All RIPE policies say that the address space might not be usable for routing purposes. 2007-01, if implemented, could lead to competing claims of ownership for an address block which cannot be dismissed immediately as without merit. > The main focus for the implementation is "new resource assignments", of > course, but for consistency reasons it's important to have a plan how > to tackle existing stuff. I see no consistency here because ERX and PA waste is totally ignored. Focusing on new assignments only would actually improve consistency. From fw at deneb.enyo.de Sat Jul 12 09:44:05 2008 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:44:05 +0200 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... References: <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> <20080711130629.GA19810@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <87ej5zsg1m.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * Shane Kerr: > Fortunately there are no secrets in the routing table! So, it is easy > to see if any given space is being routed or not. > > The only time there is a problem is if revoked space is still being > routed by someone. Some address space owners rely the uniqueness property. This applies to 3/8 and 9/8, for example, but I'm sure that it happens on a smaller scale, too. From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Sat Jul 12 08:58:46 2008 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:58:46 +0100 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: <87ej5zsg1m.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> References: <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> <20080711130629.GA19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87ej5zsg1m.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: <48785626.1050804@knowtion.net> Florian Weimer wrote: > * Shane Kerr: > > >> Fortunately there are no secrets in the routing table! So, it is easy >> to see if any given space is being routed or not. >> >> The only time there is a problem is if revoked space is still being >> routed by someone. >> > > Some address space owners rely the uniqueness property. This applies to > 3/8 and 9/8, for example, but I'm sure that it happens on a smaller > scale, too. > > And, more importantly, PI space that is not publicly routed but must be unique. On behalf of clients in the past I have applied for and had assigned PI space for intra-organisational and/or VPN space. These large, sometimes multinational, companies have public connectivity and use private address space internally and where they need a VPN or secure connection between themselves they do not want that in the public routing tables but cannot use private space. If this space is reclaimed on the simplistic basis of "it wasn't in the public routing table yesterday (or ever)" then reassigned, suddenly the original assignee finds their private and confidetial traffic might start leaking out one of their public connections. Great. Peter From fw at deneb.enyo.de Sat Jul 12 10:29:28 2008 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:29:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> (Shane Kerr's message of "Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:58:42 +0200") References: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> <87tzeyma40.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: <87y747o68n.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * Shane Kerr: > I also don't speak for any member, but I think revoking assignments is > a fantastic idea. > > In fact, I don't see how it makes sense to do otherwise. I think it depends on the question whether address space is a scarce resource. Current RIPE policies do not actually treat it as such. And if IPv6 is inevitable, it's not really cost-effective to scrape together legacy resources. You burn through RIPE funds to gain perhaps a year or two during which you can carry on with the legacy assignment processes. But nobody knows how many disputes will occur--it could happen that RIPE NCC believes that it's still got legacy resources distribute, but know wants to touch them with a three-meter pole. > Someone claims to be the authorized user of some addresses. *Nobody* > has any relationship wth this person. The only evidence you have is > that at one time in the past someone was assigned the addresses. If there's no other claim to those addresses, what harm is done? > Sure, I can call the people peering with the originator of the > advertisement, and see why they are carrying the traffic. They might > or might not be willing to give me that information, or privacy or > business reasons. Also, all because it is convenient for them to carry > the advertisements does not mean somebody else won't do the same > thing for the same space for a different originator. And finally, we > have a perfectly workable system so I don't *have* to go through this > kind of nonsense: the RIR system. The RIR system does not prevent address space hijacking. I don't think I can call RIPE NCC and demand that they stop it if it affects one of my prefixes. RIPE NCC hasn't got a routing police. > If people are unwilling to sign a contract which basically says, "I am > using this address space", then take their space back. It's not scary, > really. We don't know what will be in the contract. I can't envision how many PI-space owners would agree to things like this: | Notice that none of the provider independent resources may be | sub-assigned to a third party | Notice that the resource holder is obliged to pay an annual fee to the | LIR for the resources | A clear statement that the use of resources is subject to RIPE | policies as published on the RIPE web site and which may be amended | from time to time First point seems to imply that I can't run certain services (e.g. hosting) from PI space. Second point requires me to set up billing procedures which might not exist yet. Third point subjects me to the whim of the RIPE processes (which might implement yearly fees payable to RIPE in the future, for instance). I don't think it's a good idea to give resources to end users without any means of contacting them after the assignment. But I think the current proposal is not ready for implementation. From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Jul 11 12:38:00 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:38:00 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised2007-01... References: <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> <20080711130629.GA19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87ej5zsg1m.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <48785626.1050804@knowtion.net> Message-ID: <48773807.2201CD7C@ix.netcom.com> Peter and all, Yep this is and will be a problem. So than they need to apply for additional private space again and hope it hasn't been put in other routing tables, or seek a different solution. FWIW, I can acquire plenty of IPv8 private space that I am very sure isn't in anyones public routing tables. Of course the price is VERY reasonable as well! >:) Routes great on any VPN as well... And amazingly enough those businesses won't have any ICANN, ASO, Ripe, ARIN, APNIC, of AFNIC worries to boot. >:) Additionally, encaptulates IPv4 public IP's and IPv6 IP's seamlessly. >:) With the passing of FISA, I'm getting quite a few new discrete inquiries... So all is not lost, just changing... Ya just can't stop progress, slow it down maybe, but never stop it... Peter Galbavy wrote: > Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Shane Kerr: > > > > > >> Fortunately there are no secrets in the routing table! So, it is easy > >> to see if any given space is being routed or not. > >> > >> The only time there is a problem is if revoked space is still being > >> routed by someone. > >> > > > > Some address space owners rely the uniqueness property. This applies to > > 3/8 and 9/8, for example, but I'm sure that it happens on a smaller > > scale, too. > > > > > > And, more importantly, PI space that is not publicly routed but must be > unique. On behalf of clients in the past I have applied for and had > assigned PI space for intra-organisational and/or VPN space. These > large, sometimes multinational, companies have public connectivity and > use private address space internally and where they need a VPN or secure > connection between themselves they do not want that in the public > routing tables but cannot use private space. > > If this space is reclaimed on the simplistic basis of "it wasn't in the > public routing table yesterday (or ever)" then reassigned, suddenly the > original assignee finds their private and confidetial traffic might > start leaking out one of their public connections. Great. > > Peter Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From heldal at eml.cc Sat Jul 12 10:59:01 2008 From: heldal at eml.cc (Per Heldal) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:59:01 +0200 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: <48785626.1050804@knowtion.net> References: <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> <20080711130629.GA19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87ej5zsg1m.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <48785626.1050804@knowtion.net> Message-ID: <1215853141.26732.14.camel@obelix.sandbu> On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 07:58 +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote: > If this space is reclaimed on the simplistic basis of "it wasn't in the > public routing table yesterday (or ever)" then reassigned, suddenly the > original assignee finds their private and confidetial traffic might > start leaking out one of their public connections. Great. You have a problem if security depends on your network resources not being announced to the outside. Nothing prevents the RIR-community from changing the rules to reclaim un-announced space *if* there is consensus in support for such a move. The legitimacy of private use of allocations is an important issue in that discussion. Poor network security, however, is no excuse. //per From drc at virtualized.org Sat Jul 12 18:54:47 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:54:47 -0700 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: <1215853141.26732.14.camel@obelix.sandbu> References: <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> <20080711130629.GA19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87ej5zsg1m.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <48785626.1050804@knowtion.net> <1215853141.26732.14.camel@obelix.sandbu> Message-ID: On Jul 12, 2008, at 1:59 AM, Per Heldal wrote: > Nothing prevents the RIR-community from > changing the rules to reclaim un-announced space *if* there is > consensus > in support for such a move. I'm curious: un-announced to whom? > The legitimacy of private use of allocations is an important issue > in that discussion. Indeed. Regards, -drc From heldal at eml.cc Sat Jul 12 19:15:33 2008 From: heldal at eml.cc (Per Heldal) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:15:33 +0200 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: References: <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> <20080711130629.GA19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87ej5zsg1m.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <48785626.1050804@knowtion.net> <1215853141.26732.14.camel@obelix.sandbu> Message-ID: <1215882933.16156.9.camel@obelix.sandbu> On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 09:54 -0700, David Conrad wrote: > On Jul 12, 2008, at 1:59 AM, Per Heldal wrote: > > Nothing prevents the RIR-community from > > changing the rules to reclaim un-announced space *if* there is > > consensus > > in support for such a move. > > I'm curious: un-announced to whom? That's a matter of definition. A definition that would have to be included in such a policy. For the RIPE region one could for example argue that a block that isn't visible to RIS in a given set of locations is not used publicly. //per From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jul 12 01:43:22 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:43:22 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) References: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> <87tzeyma40.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> <87y747o68n.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: <4877F01A.8406DF68@ix.netcom.com> Florian and all, I for one agree with your conclusion. I do have a question. Whom is doing the policing of RIPE's PI space/routing? Is that ICANN/IANA or is such policing done at all? Or are the LIR's supposed to do such policing themselves without oversight? Florian Weimer wrote: > * Shane Kerr: > > > I also don't speak for any member, but I think revoking assignments is > > a fantastic idea. > > > > In fact, I don't see how it makes sense to do otherwise. > > I think it depends on the question whether address space is a scarce > resource. Current RIPE policies do not actually treat it as such. And > if IPv6 is inevitable, it's not really cost-effective to scrape together > legacy resources. You burn through RIPE funds to gain perhaps a year or > two during which you can carry on with the legacy assignment processes. > But nobody knows how many disputes will occur--it could happen that RIPE > NCC believes that it's still got legacy resources distribute, but know > wants to touch them with a three-meter pole. > > > Someone claims to be the authorized user of some addresses. *Nobody* > > has any relationship wth this person. The only evidence you have is > > that at one time in the past someone was assigned the addresses. > > If there's no other claim to those addresses, what harm is done? > > > Sure, I can call the people peering with the originator of the > > advertisement, and see why they are carrying the traffic. They might > > or might not be willing to give me that information, or privacy or > > business reasons. Also, all because it is convenient for them to carry > > the advertisements does not mean somebody else won't do the same > > thing for the same space for a different originator. And finally, we > > have a perfectly workable system so I don't *have* to go through this > > kind of nonsense: the RIR system. > > The RIR system does not prevent address space hijacking. I don't think > I can call RIPE NCC and demand that they stop it if it affects one of my > prefixes. RIPE NCC hasn't got a routing police. > > > If people are unwilling to sign a contract which basically says, "I am > > using this address space", then take their space back. It's not scary, > > really. > > We don't know what will be in the contract. I can't envision how many > PI-space owners would agree to things like this: > > | Notice that none of the provider independent resources may be > | sub-assigned to a third party > > | Notice that the resource holder is obliged to pay an annual fee to the > | LIR for the resources > > | A clear statement that the use of resources is subject to RIPE > | policies as published on the RIPE web site and which may be amended > | from time to time > > First point seems to imply that I can't run certain services > (e.g. hosting) from PI space. Second point requires me to set up > billing procedures which might not exist yet. Third point subjects me > to the whim of the RIPE processes (which might implement yearly fees > payable to RIPE in the future, for instance). > > I don't think it's a good idea to give resources to end users without > any means of contacting them after the assignment. But I think the > current proposal is not ready for implementation. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From fw at deneb.enyo.de Sat Jul 12 23:51:27 2008 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:51:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <4877F01A.8406DF68@ix.netcom.com> (Jeffrey A. Williams's message of "Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:43:22 -0700") References: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> <87tzeyma40.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> <87y747o68n.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <4877F01A.8406DF68@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <87lk063h5s.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * Jeffrey A. Williams: > I for one agree with your conclusion. I do have a question. > Whom is doing the policing of RIPE's PI space/routing? What kind of policing do you mean? From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jul 12 03:11:31 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:11:31 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) References: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> <87tzeyma40.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> <87y747o68n.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <4877F01A.8406DF68@ix.netcom.com> <87lk063h5s.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: <487804C3.16FC7067@ix.netcom.com> Florian and all, Routing policing, which was what you earlier on this thread made mantion of that Ripe does not do. So whom does or should? Frankly, I think Ripe should do routhing policing with the IANA oversight and barring the primary legal responsibility. Yet I am sure that the IANA would disagree. Florian Weimer wrote: > * Jeffrey A. Williams: > > > I for one agree with your conclusion. I do have a question. > > Whom is doing the policing of RIPE's PI space/routing? > > What kind of policing do you mean? Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From heldal at eml.cc Sun Jul 13 10:02:02 2008 From: heldal at eml.cc (Per Heldal) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:02:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <4877F01A.8406DF68@ix.netcom.com> References: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> <87tzeyma40.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> <87y747o68n.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <4877F01A.8406DF68@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <1215936122.10223.11.camel@obelix.sandbu> On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 16:43 -0700, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Florian and all, > > I for one agree with your conclusion. I do have a question. > Whom is doing the policing of RIPE's PI space/routing? > Is that ICANN/IANA or is such policing done at all? Or > are the LIR's supposed to do such policing themselves without > oversight? Policing is not so important in a regime where the reward for good behaviour is better than what can be achieved by breaking the rules. The community isn't big on penalties. That's why we're struggling so hard to avoid a situation that forces us to use a stick once we're out of carrots. //per From michael.dillon at bt.com Sun Jul 13 16:06:42 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:06:42 +0100 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: <48785626.1050804@knowtion.net> Message-ID: > If this space is reclaimed on the simplistic basis of "it > wasn't in the public routing table yesterday (or ever)" then > reassigned, suddenly the original assignee finds their > private and confidetial traffic might start leaking out one > of their public connections. Great. May I remind everyone involved in writing RIPE policies, that RFC 2050, which was co-authored by Daniel Karrenburg of RIPE, describes the IP address Assignment Framework in section 3. In paragraph 3 a), it says: the organization has no intention of connecting to the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still requires a globally unique IP address. The organization should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918. If it is determined this is not possible, they can be issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses. This has been a fundamental characteristic of IP addresses since day 1. In the early RFCs, the term Internet was used to refer to all internetworks using the Internet Protocol(IP) because most people assumed universal interconnectivity. But now we know better and the term Internet only refers to the public Internet, not to the various private IP internetworks that exist. Most of the large international IP network providers, offer both Internet access and IP VPN services. Some of those IP VPNs are actually internetworks between many independent companies or organizations as described by Peter Galbavy. The organizations who connect to private internets continue to apply for PI address space (and also PA address space) at RIPE and other RIRs. IP addresses are *NOT* reserved for the exclusive used of the public Internet, but are available for use of any internetwork which uses the Internet Protocol (IP). And if you talk to routing researchers you will learn that the global routing table is a bit of a myth since it is not guaranteed that you will see 100% of publicly announced addresses at any given point in the public Internet. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Sun Jul 13 16:22:53 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:22:53 +0100 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised2007-01... In-Reply-To: <1215853141.26732.14.camel@obelix.sandbu> Message-ID: > Nothing > prevents the RIR-community from changing the rules to reclaim > un-announced space *if* there is consensus in support for > such a move. There never will be consensus as long as I, and other people from global IP network operators are involved in RIPE policy making. I would say that is a guarantee that there will *NEVER* be any change to addressing policy which would give public Internet usage some kind of priority over private internet usage. My company has an important part of our business, i.e. very important customers, using a global IP internet which is not interconnected to the public Internet. Let me quote from the July 1st issue of Waters magazine, a publication serving the technology side of the global financial services industry: In one of the few categories to remain completely unchanged in this year's rankings, BT Radianz has clinched a fifth successive victory in the race to be the best financial network provider. Since 2004, Waters readers have consistently voted for Radianz and that trend shows no sign of changing just yet. That global IP internet is one of the many non-public internets that are used by multiple companies in one industry or another. Some of these networks are big, like ours, for instance in the automotive industry or in aviation. Others are small and are basically an extranet with a handful of business partners who want to exchange IP traffic but do not want it to transit the public Internet. This is the reality of today, where IP networking technology is ubiquitous. That does not mean that everyone just plugs into the nearest Internet access connectivity. It means that private internets are growing faster, and some day they may be growing collectively faster than the public Internet. --Michael Dillon From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jul 12 19:47:30 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:47:30 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to ReviewPeriod (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) References: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> <87tzeyma40.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20080710095842.GB1431@borg.c-l-i.net> <87y747o68n.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <4877F01A.8406DF68@ix.netcom.com> <1215936122.10223.11.camel@obelix.sandbu> Message-ID: <4878EE32.A4E49D6C@ix.netcom.com> Per and all, Per Heldal wrote: > On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 16:43 -0700, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > > Florian and all, > > > > I for one agree with your conclusion. I do have a question. > > Whom is doing the policing of RIPE's PI space/routing? > > Is that ICANN/IANA or is such policing done at all? Or > > are the LIR's supposed to do such policing themselves without > > oversight? > > Policing is not so important in a regime where the reward for good > behaviour is better than what can be achieved by breaking the rules. The > community isn't big on penalties. That's why we're struggling so hard to > avoid a situation that forces us to use a stick once we're out of > carrots. > > //per Respectfully, I disagree in part. If no stick, carrots are less than useless as if bad behavior goes unchecked and unpunnished, errors and intentional bad behavior remains a threat and will continue to occur as history has already shown us. IP theft is now common place and on the rise as an example. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jul 12 19:56:28 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:56:28 -0700 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... References: Message-ID: <4878F04C.8E3C8B58@ix.netcom.com> Michael and all, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > If this space is reclaimed on the simplistic basis of "it > > wasn't in the public routing table yesterday (or ever)" then > > reassigned, suddenly the original assignee finds their > > private and confidetial traffic might start leaking out one > > of their public connections. Great. > > May I remind everyone involved in writing RIPE policies, that RFC 2050, > which was co-authored by Daniel Karrenburg of RIPE, describes the > IP address Assignment Framework in section 3. In paragraph 3 a), > it says: > > the organization has no intention of connecting to > the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still > requires a globally unique IP address. The organization > should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918. > If it is determined this is not possible, they can be > issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses. Yes and a not so good policy. > > > This has been a fundamental characteristic of IP addresses since > day 1. In the early RFCs, the term Internet was used to refer to > all internetworks using the Internet Protocol(IP) because most > people assumed universal interconnectivity. But now we know better > and the term Internet only refers to the public Internet, not to > the various private IP internetworks that exist. Most of the large > international IP network providers, offer both Internet access > and IP VPN services. Some of those IP VPNs are actually internetworks > between many independent companies or organizations as described by > Peter Galbavy. Peters discription is however not complete, as we now know, and as many have contended sence day 1, was never intended as he discribes it. > > > The organizations who connect to private internets continue to apply > for PI address space (and also PA address space) at RIPE and other > RIRs. IP addresses are *NOT* reserved for the exclusive used of the > public Internet, but are available for use of any internetwork which > uses the Internet Protocol (IP). > > And if you talk to routing researchers you will learn that the global > routing table is a bit of a myth since it is not guaranteed that you > will see 100% of publicly announced addresses at any given point in > the public Internet. Exactly right and therefore presupposes that private PI or PA space wheather public or not are in any routing scheme may or may not reflect the public internet routing policy which is just a fact of the real world. > > > --Michael Dillon Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Jul 12 20:00:00 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:00:00 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised2007-01... References: Message-ID: <4878F120.6E367AD6@ix.netcom.com> Michael and all, Good points, and largely accurate. And indeed the I would contend that due to the nature of the public internet, the private internet with links to the public internet are growing faster than the public internet, and have been for several years. michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > Nothing > > prevents the RIR-community from changing the rules to reclaim > > un-announced space *if* there is consensus in support for > > such a move. > > There never will be consensus as long as I, and other people > from global IP network operators are involved in RIPE policy > making. I would say that is a guarantee that there will > *NEVER* be any change to addressing policy which would give > public Internet usage some kind of priority over private > internet usage. > > My company has an important part of our business, i.e. very > important customers, using a global IP internet which is not > interconnected to the public Internet. Let me quote from the > July 1st issue of Waters magazine, a publication serving the > technology side of the global financial services industry: > > In one of the few categories to remain completely unchanged > in this year's rankings, BT Radianz has clinched a fifth > successive victory in the race to be the best financial > network provider. Since 2004, Waters readers have > consistently voted for Radianz and that trend shows no > sign of changing just yet. > > That global IP internet is one of the many non-public internets > that are used by multiple companies in one industry or another. > Some of these networks are big, like ours, for instance in the > automotive industry or in aviation. Others are small and are > basically an extranet with a handful of business partners who > want to exchange IP traffic but do not want it to transit the > public Internet. > > This is the reality of today, where IP networking technology > is ubiquitous. That does not mean that everyone just plugs into > the nearest Internet access connectivity. It means that private > internets are growing faster, and some day they may be growing > collectively faster than the public Internet. > > --Michael Dillon Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From slz at baycix.de Mon Jul 14 08:36:31 2008 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:36:31 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080710072830.GD11038@Space.Net> References: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> <20080710072830.GD11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: <487AF3EF.50303@baycix.de> Hi altogether, Gert Doering schrieb: > Hi APWG folks, > > this proposal keep being difficult for our processes. > > We got a rebound from the WG chair collective, because they felt that > there was no explicit consensus for version *2* of the proposal, which had > some signficant changes (inclusion of ERX in the text). > > Now this is v3, trying to work out the last wrinkles, and get it through > the process properly, and we got *NO* comments on it. > > "No comments" does not mean "consensus". It means "nobody is interested, > leave us alone with this". > > I think that this is a very important milestone, and it needs good backing > by the community (or if you don't want it, it should be explicitely torn > down). > > The main difference v2 -> v3 is that ERX space has been completely taken > out [because RIPE has no legal basis to enforce anything - we'll come back > to this with a new proposal], and that there is a *new* document that > describes what to do with existing end-user assignments - which has exactly > the same intent as v2, but we can't put requirements for existing assignments > into a "new assignments" documents, so this needed cleaning up. > > So - please read the documents, as referenced in Ana's mail below, and then > explicitely voice agreement or disagreement with 2007-01 v3. > > thanks, [...] the PDP we have starts to annoy me over this proposal. Very sad. My clear p.o.v., as private netizen, as consultant and as LIR still is: We need a contractual relationship in those cases we're talking about here. So i still support this proposal - "2007-01 v3", even though i'm a little unhappy about all the redesigns and the political debate around it. I still have one or two issues with the details, too (like we still don't have actual NUMBERS as in $$$ etc.), but i'm not that self-centric to stop the whole process about that. If there's a problem, we can start again from there, AFTER THIS IS FINALLY IMPLEMENTED. Policies can be CHANGED again guys... politicians do it all the time... PLEASE go on with this, now. It's a start at least. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ======================================================================== From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Mon Jul 14 07:40:18 2008 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 06:40:18 +0100 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: <4878F04C.8E3C8B58@ix.netcom.com> References: <4878F04C.8E3C8B58@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <487AE6C2.9040009@knowtion.net> Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Yes and a not so good policy. > An excellent policy, actually. Most "excellent" policies are formulates before greed and commercial interests get a hold; See US Declaration of Independence, early RIPE policies and most RFCs before the IETF happened. > > Peters discription is however not complete, as we now know, and > as many have contended sence day 1, was never intended as he > discribes it. > > Er, actually in this context it is and was and hopefully will be. I think I was hanging around in the background when many of these were formulated; not contributing, but drinking the coffee at least. As Michael says the "public" Internet is not completely what the original RFC authors had in mind. > > Exactly right and therefore presupposes that private PI or PA space > wheather public or not are in any routing scheme may or may not reflect > the public internet routing policy which is just a fact of the real world. > Not that simple and probably not true. You are conflating routing between networks (internetworking) and this supposed public infrastructure where a large proportion of the address space is visible in some form. They are not the same and how will you decide who's policy viewpoint is the right one ? Let me guess, a network with a routing policy and a viewpoint you agree with ? Peter From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Mon Jul 14 16:52:09 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:52:09 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC322FD3@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> <1215769781.27476.52.camel@obelix.sandbu> Message-ID: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC322FFC@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Per Heldal wrote: > Current policies only work because there's a carrot associated with good > behaviour (allocations). When there is no more carrots there's no point > trying to make any kind of rules unless we're prepared (technically and > legally) to enforce them. Thus 2007-08 is pointless. We could just as > well turn RIPE's IPv4 WHOIS registry into some kind of best-effort-run > self-service-robot. All that remains is a requirement to be able to > identify the user of any address-resources that IANA has allocated to > RIPE. In your opinion, once we run out of space, any policy at all is pointless. I do not agree. Most people don't need a carrot (or a stick, for that matter) to cooperate nicely. What we do need is some non-intrusive rules that are easy to adhere to. The need for an accurate and usable database will remain, combined with an organisational structure for maintaining that. We've got the NCC doing that now - I think we'd like to keep that going forward. > What I meant was to obtain reasonably reliable numbers which show how > much address-space might become available for re-use given various > schemes and/or pricing. I.e. for the RIRs to perform surveys towards > existing LIRs and known legacy-allocation-holders as > businesses analyse > their markets. Policies and work to deal with a transfer-market is a > waste of time and resources unless numbers are significant. Growth is > king, and if v4 can't provide for growth it'll go elsewhere. I would very much like to see some figures as well, but is it relevant for the decision at hand? We have no policy for registering address space other than 'fresh' allocations, and we're going to run out of that space. So we need some replacement policy before that time. Or be content that as far as v4 is concerned, we can burn the database on a DVD and use that as the final distribution of IPv4, ever. I don't think that's what we want, hence 2007-08. > Except the suggested policy explicitly removes any regulation on the > receiving LIR. Now you can't just get an initial allocation, but have > the blessing to acquire 1000s with no questions asked until the existing > requirements to document continued need of current blocks kicks in. Do > you expect the NCC to go after those in retrospect, and that it will > easier to enforce than a requirement to document need-for-space prior to > the acquisition? Well, LIRs can already do that when they buy another LIR. Which is a cumbersome transaction and not very transparent from a registration perspective. If you want a genuine 'need-for-space' we should reclaim all IPv4 space today and have IANA hand out addresses on a daily basis, DHCP-style. It will of course kill aggregation and a host of other things, but it's as far as you can go from the conservation perspective. If you think that without enforcement there can be no rules, I'd hate to live in your neighborhood. The reward for good behaviour is of course, that your neighbors don't consider you to be an a.....e. The Internet is an infrastructure based on cooperation - appearances count. Best, Remco Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Jul 14 17:48:21 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:48:21 +0100 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: <20080714133517.GA356@reiftel.karrenberg.net> Message-ID: > Such adjustments would almost certainly mean that operators > of private or not widely announced IP networks would incur > costs. On the other hand in the absence of such adjustments > the operators of the Internet would incur costs because of > the unavailability of IPv4 addresses. Bottom line is that there are no operators of private networks who are not also operators of the Internet. > I am sure such > trade-offs would be discussed vividly within BT. ;-) And within Equant/Orange, and Deutsche Telekom and MCI/Verizon and Savvis and all the other operators who run both private IP networks and public IP networks. > Responsible policy making will take into account these basic > issues and adjust policies where necessary. That's why I raised the issue. Also, please don't assume that I am trying to put BT's interests forward here. I'm not. I am trying to put forward the interests of BT's customers who rely on these globally unique registered IP addresses but who rarely have a voice in RIPE or other RIRs. > In this > particular case it is important to consider the likelihood of > un-coordinated use of IPv4 addresses which are allocated but > not widely used on the Internet and the associated > operational costs as well as the consequential loss of > credibility of the Internet registry system. The likelihood is 100% and it has been going on for at least 10 years that I know about. Some people rely on globally unique registered IP addresses and others are happy if they can use addresses that aren't being used by anybody else in their region, or that are on a network that is separate in some way. An RIR registration gives you the right to use certain addresses, but it does not prohibit anybody else from using the same addresses. Same thing goes for AS numbers such as AS 54271. > Blindly insisting on the status-quo in the face of a changing > environment is never helpful and often counter-productive. I assure you that I have given this matter a lot of thought, and I continue to find IPv6 deployment superior to all the proposals for a heroic last gasp of IPv4. > So I encourage those that favour "reclamation" propose > concrete policies which take into account the issues which > Michael raises. That is the core of my argument. Most people making policy change proposals are thinking only of the public Internet and are only trying to create something that helps ISPs. But IP addresses and the IP technology suite are not just there for the benefit of ISPs. There is a broader community that relies on this network technology and it is no solution at all if a policy change cuts off some part of the larger community. > One avenue to proceed could be to create multiple IPv4 > address space registries ... boxes inside Pandora's ? It is proven technology. A few years ago I set up a server in the UK which used IP addresses that Afrinic has assigned to a company in Morocco. Internet access worked fine and I downloaded software upgrades and browsed Google and various websites. NAT makes sinning profitable. But, you always have to ask this question. If I am going to spend some money to implement NAT, why not implement NAT-PT and insure that the investment helps me into the brave new world of IPv6, instead of spending money that backs me into a corner with IPv4 NAT? --Michael Dillon From gert at space.net Mon Jul 14 18:00:19 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:00:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC322FCE@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: <20080714160019.GT11038@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 02:32:05PM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > I'd like the chairs to throw out the whole proposal because > it tries to predict the future and solve a problem that does > not even exist yet. Good stewardship implies "anticipating problems". Which is why we recommend moving to IPv6 - but if people won't do that in time (and the chances are VERY high), we'll run out of IPv4. And then we will see problems - some of which are quite easy to anticipate. 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 nick at inex.ie Mon Jul 14 18:15:35 2008 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:15:35 +0100 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487B7BA7.9070508@inex.ie> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > Bottom line is that there are no operators of private networks > who are not also operators of the Internet. I see no reason to believe this statement or to feel that it has any relevance to 2007-01. PI number assignments are/were made on the basis of technical justification, not on the basis of whether they are used on the Internet (with a capital "I" - whatever that means). > some way. An RIR registration gives you the right to use certain > addresses, but it does not prohibit anybody else from using the > same addresses. Same thing goes for AS numbers such as AS 54271. An RIR does not give you a right to use address resources. You have the right to use any address you want, where-ever you want. You think I can't use BT address space on my lab network if I want to, along with AS5400?? Just you wait and see! The RIRs are merely clearing-houses which state that if you abide by their rules, that they will also abide by their rules. One of these rules states that if they associate certain addresses with your name, the RIR will not associate those addresses with anyone else's name. The RIPE NCC is not the police, a deity or anything else. It's merely an trusted third party registration agency. And we are all just part of a community which benefits from agreeing to a consistent set of procedures which is maintained by the RIPE NCC. > That is the core of my argument. Most people making policy change > proposals are thinking only of the public Internet and are only > trying to create something that helps ISPs. Look, can we be quite clear here: 2007-01 makes no statement directly or indirectly about whether address resources are used on any particular network, whether that be the Internet-with-a-capital-I, your granny's wifi network at home or my BT-lookalike lab network. It merely states that new and continued registration of certain types of provider independent address resources is contingent on entering into a direct or indirect contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. No more, no less. Nick -- 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 nick at inex.ie Mon Jul 14 18:36:28 2008 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:36:28 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487B808C.2070603@inex.ie> Leo Vegoda wrote: > What would you propose the RIPE NCC do with revoked address space > assignments? Should they just keep them in a "sin bin" or should they > allocate or assign the address space to other network operators? Phone companies reassign telephone numbers all the time, and people don't get terribly upset by the idea of it. Is there a serious problem with revocation? Re-using scarce resources is something that's going to happen, regardless of 2007-01. Nick -- 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 Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Mon Jul 14 18:38:55 2008 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:38:55 +0100 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: <487B7BA7.9070508@inex.ie> References: <487B7BA7.9070508@inex.ie> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:15:35 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > It merely states that new and continued registration of certain types of > provider independent address resources is contingent on entering into a > direct or indirect contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. IMHO, it would be useful to include that statement in (or even instead of) the "Summary" at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html. Moreover, the following text (flagged "ADDITION TO DOCUMENT >>" in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft-2007-01-v3.html) needs a heading of its own as its context is clearly wider than what the heading "End Users requesting PI space should be given this or a similar warning" suggests. The policies stated above about the PI address space covers all non PA address space maintained in the RIPE database, except address space marked as Early Registration (ERX) and address space marked as NON-SET. The RIPE community has requested that the RIPE NCC to take necessary steps to make sure that this is realised. In cases where the RIPE NCC cannot locate the End User that is a PI address space assignee within 3 months, the address space will be returned to the RIPE NCC pool and and made available for re-assignment to other End Users. IIRC, this incongruity was already pointed (not by me) out at some stage during RIPE 56. I can't help feeling that the intention to apply the new policy retro-actively is being understated. This very much isn't something that should be finessed, but rather needs to be made abundantly clear. VBR, Niall O'Reilly From nick at inex.ie Mon Jul 14 18:41:19 2008 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:41:19 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <87zloo15vc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87zloo15vc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: <487B81AF.1050407@inex.ie> > The real fun starts when RIPE recovers address space, reassigns it, and > the depossessed party starts to sue the new owner. > > (Please substitute mentally the correct concept for "owning".) We are heading towards address resource scarcity. Fights have a habit of breaking out when people jostle for scarce resources. Are you saying that revocation shouldn't happen? It means that all assignments are given in perpetuity, unless the holder explicitly hands the address space back. If the address space isn't used, or if the holder disappears, then the address space is lost forever. It's a memory leak which needs to be fixed. Nick -- 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 leo.vegoda at icann.org Mon Jul 14 19:21:10 2008 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:21:10 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <487B808C.2070603@inex.ie> Message-ID: On 14/07/2008 6:36, "Nick Hilliard" wrote: > Leo Vegoda wrote: >> What would you propose the RIPE NCC do with revoked address space >> assignments? Should they just keep them in a "sin bin" or should they >> allocate or assign the address space to other network operators? > > Phone companies reassign telephone numbers all the time, and people don't > get terribly upset by the idea of it. I'm sure that's covered in the contracts their customers sign. Also, phone companies tend not to reassign numbers to which they continue to provide a service. The RIPE NCC isn't the phone company and its main service is registration, not voice calls. It's a service that many registrants may not realise they receive or benefit from. So while the concept of revoking unused resources is attractive, the practicality of it is awkward. > Is there a serious problem with > revocation? Re-using scarce resources is something that's going to happen, > regardless of 2007-01. Of course there will be all sorts of re-use and 'hijacking'. I suspect that a simple transfer policy is the least painful way of minimising the problem. Experience shows that top-down reclamation activities are difficult and slow. Regards, Leo From garry at nethinks.com Mon Jul 14 19:36:00 2008 From: garry at nethinks.com (Garry Glendown) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:36:00 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <487B81AF.1050407@inex.ie> References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87zloo15vc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <487B81AF.1050407@inex.ie> Message-ID: <487B8E80.6030005@nethinks.com> Nick Hilliard wrote: > Are you saying that revocation shouldn't happen? It means that all > assignments are given in perpetuity, unless the holder explicitly hands > the address space back. If the address space isn't used, or if the > holder disappears, then the address space is lost forever. It's a > memory leak which needs to be fixed. And even with knowing the v4 situation, als RIRs seem to be running into the same trap yet again, eyes closed ... Apart from technical issues (like e.g. no recommendations as to IP usage - do I need to quote people advocating use of /64 for PTP-Transfernetworks? How many machines do they actually expect to see on a Point-to-Point link?) Why not start doing it right while we still can - at least RIPE doesn't have PIv6 yet, so when better to start (and that is for all RIRs) ... Hand out PI only with either a reasonable yearly renewal fee (billed to the user, not the LIR getting it for them), or at least implement an active renewal policy - once a year, a user/company has 3 months to confirm continued use by a simple web interface (should take less than a week's work to program), with 3 final notices reminding them to actively do confirm use. If they don't answer or don't exist anymore, the space is automatically returned to the RIR for reuse (possibly with some internal grace period), as they obviously don't need it anymore. Also, put this in the contract and you're pretty much safe. Is this really so hard to implement? Is there any provider that could be opposed to such a handling? After all, any of you having PA already are in the same position - you pay yearly dues to keep your IP space. The same should apply to already given out PI space, though I do understand the problem of contacting owners of some ancient PI registrations - but maybe some legal advocate could point out whether the requirement to have your RIPE db data up to date could be used as a basis to reclaim IP space from people that can't be contacted and whose space isn't in the global routing tables ... Anyway, anybody falling into the "no more IPv4 addresses" pit in some 18-36 months is at his own fault for not preparing for v6 in time ... Yes it costs money (both for hard/software and time spent), but v4 is a dead man walking, so don't wait until he's strapped down and waiting for the switch to be flicked ... -garry From tme at multicasttech.com Mon Jul 14 20:16:22 2008 From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:16:22 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6317CE8B-2253-4893-B3A6-BF499000C1A1@multicasttech.com> On Jul 14, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote: > On 14/07/2008 6:36, "Nick Hilliard" wrote: > >> Leo Vegoda wrote: >>> What would you propose the RIPE NCC do with revoked address space >>> assignments? Should they just keep them in a "sin bin" or should >>> they >>> allocate or assign the address space to other network operators? >> >> Phone companies reassign telephone numbers all the time, and people >> don't >> get terribly upset by the idea of it. > > I'm sure that's covered in the contracts their customers sign. Also, > phone > companies tend not to reassign numbers to which they continue to > provide a > service. If the phone company called me up and said, "we are changing your phone number starting August 1, have a nice day," I would get pretty upset, and I know a lot of businesses that would get upset. I dare say that some would sue. If, however, I don't pay the phone bill, eventually the number would be reassigned, and that does happen all of the time. That is a much closer analogy to revoked address assignments, and I don't think that they would be a problem to reuse them. It would be reasonable to have a Oldest-Revocation-First queue policy (so that blocks are not immediately reassigned), to provide a margin for the possibility of revocations in error, people who change their minds, etc. I also believe that the phone company does something similar to that. If a company goes out of business, it takes a while before the number gets assigned to someone else. Regards Marshall > > > The RIPE NCC isn't the phone company and its main service is > registration, > not voice calls. It's a service that many registrants may not > realise they > receive or benefit from. So while the concept of revoking unused > resources > is attractive, the practicality of it is awkward. > >> Is there a serious problem with >> revocation? Re-using scarce resources is something that's going to >> happen, >> regardless of 2007-01. > > Of course there will be all sorts of re-use and 'hijacking'. I > suspect that > a simple transfer policy is the least painful way of minimising the > problem. > Experience shows that top-down reclamation activities are difficult > and > slow. > > Regards, > > Leo > From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Jul 14 02:32:59 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:32:59 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised2007-01... References: <4878F04C.8E3C8B58@ix.netcom.com> <487AE6C2.9040009@knowtion.net> Message-ID: <487A9EBA.6E82556A@ix.netcom.com> Peter and all Peter Galbavy wrote: > Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > > Yes and a not so good policy. > > > An excellent policy, actually. Most "excellent" policies are formulates > before greed and commercial interests get a hold; See US Declaration of > Independence, early RIPE policies and most RFCs before the IETF happened. Commercial interests already have a hold, and were sense day one eventually going to get a hold. Ergo why this policy was not well thought out. Sorry to disagree here, but I am compeled to do so on practical grounds. > > > > > > Peters discription is however not complete, as we now know, and > > as many have contended sence day 1, was never intended as he > > discribes it. > > > > > Er, actually in this context it is and was and hopefully will be. I > think I was hanging around in the background when many of these were > formulated; not contributing, but drinking the coffee at least. As > Michael says the "public" Internet is not completely what the original > RFC authors had in mind. Mixing metaphors here it seems. > > > > > Exactly right and therefore presupposes that private PI or PA space > > wheather public or not are in any routing scheme may or may not reflect > > the public internet routing policy which is just a fact of the real world. > > > Not that simple and probably not true. You are conflating routing > between networks (internetworking) and this supposed public > infrastructure where a large proportion of the address space is visible > in some form. They are not the same and how will you decide who's policy > viewpoint is the right one ? Let me guess, a network with a routing > policy and a viewpoint you agree with ? Routing and internetworking are intertwined and have to some degree for a very long time now. More in depth is coming wheather or not it is, or is not wise. It's also not a metter if I agree or not, it is a matter of if the majority or providers or various sorts do. > > > Peter Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Jul 14 02:36:19 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:36:19 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period(Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) References: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> <20080710072830.GD11038@Space.Net> <487AF3EF.50303@baycix.de> Message-ID: <487A9F83.2C2A80E4@ix.netcom.com> Sascha and all, Sure changing policies can be done on a daily basis. But what does that say for stability? Not much IMO. Setting a good long term policy is far better and again IMHO, necessary. Sascha Lenz wrote: > Hi altogether, > > Gert Doering schrieb: > > Hi APWG folks, > > > > this proposal keep being difficult for our processes. > > > > We got a rebound from the WG chair collective, because they felt that > > there was no explicit consensus for version *2* of the proposal, which had > > some signficant changes (inclusion of ERX in the text). > > > > Now this is v3, trying to work out the last wrinkles, and get it through > > the process properly, and we got *NO* comments on it. > > > > "No comments" does not mean "consensus". It means "nobody is interested, > > leave us alone with this". > > > > I think that this is a very important milestone, and it needs good backing > > by the community (or if you don't want it, it should be explicitely torn > > down). > > > > The main difference v2 -> v3 is that ERX space has been completely taken > > out [because RIPE has no legal basis to enforce anything - we'll come back > > to this with a new proposal], and that there is a *new* document that > > describes what to do with existing end-user assignments - which has exactly > > the same intent as v2, but we can't put requirements for existing assignments > > into a "new assignments" documents, so this needed cleaning up. > > > > So - please read the documents, as referenced in Ana's mail below, and then > > explicitely voice agreement or disagreement with 2007-01 v3. > > > > thanks, > [...] > > the PDP we have starts to annoy me over this proposal. > Very sad. > > My clear p.o.v., as private netizen, as consultant and as LIR still is: > > We need a contractual relationship in those cases we're talking about > here. So i still support this proposal - "2007-01 v3", even though i'm a > little unhappy about all the redesigns and the political debate around it. > > I still have one or two issues with the details, too (like we still > don't have actual NUMBERS as in $$$ etc.), but i'm not that self-centric > to stop the whole process about that. > If there's a problem, we can start again from there, AFTER THIS IS > FINALLY IMPLEMENTED. Policies can be CHANGED again guys... politicians > do it all the time... > > PLEASE go on with this, now. It's a start at least. > > -- > ======================================================================== > = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = > = Network Design & Operations = > = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = > ======================================================================== Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Jul 14 02:47:52 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:47:52 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised2007-01... References: <487B7BA7.9070508@inex.ie> Message-ID: <487AA238.7C6ED01F@ix.netcom.com> Nick and all, Agreed! Well thought out and presented as well. Thank you! Nick Hilliard wrote: > michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > Bottom line is that there are no operators of private networks > > who are not also operators of the Internet. > > I see no reason to believe this statement or to feel that it has any > relevance to 2007-01. PI number assignments are/were made on the basis of > technical justification, not on the basis of whether they are used on the > Internet (with a capital "I" - whatever that means). > > > some way. An RIR registration gives you the right to use certain > > addresses, but it does not prohibit anybody else from using the > > same addresses. Same thing goes for AS numbers such as AS 54271. > > An RIR does not give you a right to use address resources. You have the > right to use any address you want, where-ever you want. You think I can't > use BT address space on my lab network if I want to, along with AS5400?? > Just you wait and see! > > The RIRs are merely clearing-houses which state that if you abide by their > rules, that they will also abide by their rules. One of these rules states > that if they associate certain addresses with your name, the RIR will not > associate those addresses with anyone else's name. > > The RIPE NCC is not the police, a deity or anything else. It's merely an > trusted third party registration agency. And we are all just part of a > community which benefits from agreeing to a consistent set of procedures > which is maintained by the RIPE NCC. > > > That is the core of my argument. Most people making policy change > > proposals are thinking only of the public Internet and are only > > trying to create something that helps ISPs. > > Look, can we be quite clear here: 2007-01 makes no statement directly or > indirectly about whether address resources are used on any particular > network, whether that be the Internet-with-a-capital-I, your granny's wifi > network at home or my BT-lookalike lab network. It merely states that new > and continued registration of certain types of provider independent address > resources is contingent on entering into a direct or indirect contractual > relationship with the RIPE NCC. No more, no less. > > Nick > -- > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Jul 14 02:50:49 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:50:49 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period(Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) References: <487B808C.2070603@inex.ie> Message-ID: <487AA2E9.1823AA66@ix.netcom.com> Nick and all, Yes reassigning of phone numbers is done every day, and it has caused serious problems which is one of several reasons the "Do Not Call List" was established. De-routing of certain IP address blocks is also done every day, and perhaps a "Do not route list" is needed. Nick Hilliard wrote: > Leo Vegoda wrote: > > What would you propose the RIPE NCC do with revoked address space > > assignments? Should they just keep them in a "sin bin" or should they > > allocate or assign the address space to other network operators? > > Phone companies reassign telephone numbers all the time, and people don't > get terribly upset by the idea of it. Is there a serious problem with > revocation? Re-using scarce resources is something that's going to happen, > regardless of 2007-01. > > Nick > -- > 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 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From nigel at titley.com Tue Jul 15 11:50:27 2008 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:50:27 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <487B8E80.6030005@nethinks.com> References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87zloo15vc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <487B81AF.1050407@inex.ie> <487B8E80.6030005@nethinks.com> Message-ID: <487C72E3.7030707@titley.com> > The same should apply to already given out PI space, though I do > understand the problem of contacting owners of some ancient PI > registrations - but maybe some legal advocate could point out whether > the requirement to have your RIPE db data up to date could be used as a > basis to reclaim IP space from people that can't be contacted and whose > space isn't in the global routing tables ... Just for the record (and to show that the Board/RIPE NCC isn't asleep on the job) we are taking legal advice on the best way to go about framing the contact/contract with existing PI address holders if/when 2007-01 reaches consensus. If the legal advice is that there is no realistic way to do this, then we will of course report back to the apwg. I have to record, from a personal point of view that I feel very nervous about going back to existing PI holders and asking them to sign a contract. Whilst accepting all the arguments that this is a good thing, and allows us to garbage collect dead space, I can still see troubles ahead. However, man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward.... we will plan as best we can. Nigel From randy at psg.com Tue Jul 15 11:54:58 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 02:54:58 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <487C72E3.7030707@titley.com> References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87zloo15vc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <487B81AF.1050407@inex.ie> <487B8E80.6030005@nethinks.com> <487C72E3.7030707@titley.com> Message-ID: <487C73F2.9020101@psg.com> > I have to record, from a personal point of view that I feel very nervous > about going back to existing PI holders and asking them to sign a > contract. Whilst accepting all the arguments that this is a good thing, > and allows us to garbage collect dead space, I can still see troubles ahead. thank you. as one of those who think arin's approach to this is insulting and legally unjustified, i would be quite cheered by a more even-handed and less self-righteous example being set by ripe. randy From nick at inex.ie Tue Jul 15 12:02:07 2008 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:02:07 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <487C73F2.9020101@psg.com> References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87zloo15vc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <487B81AF.1050407@inex.ie> <487B8E80.6030005@nethinks.com> <487C72E3.7030707@titley.com> <487C73F2.9020101@psg.com> Message-ID: <487C759F.8080306@inex.ie> Randy Bush wrote: > as one of those who think arin's approach to this is insulting and > legally unjustified, i would be quite cheered by a more even-handed and > less self-righteous example being set by ripe. The self-righteousness is mine, tyvm. But, you've expressed an opinion that 2007-01 is objectionable. Maybe you could outline what you'd like to see changed? Nick From gert at space.net Tue Jul 15 12:17:06 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:17:06 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <487C73F2.9020101@psg.com> References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87zloo15vc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <487B81AF.1050407@inex.ie> <487B8E80.6030005@nethinks.com> <487C72E3.7030707@titley.com> <487C73F2.9020101@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080715101706.GA11038@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 02:54:58AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > as one of those who think arin's approach to this is insulting and > legally unjustified, i would be quite cheered by a more even-handed and > less self-righteous example being set by ripe. So what do you propose how to tackle this? (As in "this" being "establish stronger ties to the existing resource holders", to figure out where the resources are today, and possibly reclaim those that have been truly lost). I assume that you don't worry about requiring the contracts for *new* end-user assignments, but only worry about retroactively applying those? (I want to point out that the audience at the last RIPE meeting in Amsterdam explicitely asked Nick Hilliard to change 2007-01 v1 to include existing assignments, which v1 did *not* do. So this is how we arrived here...) 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 daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Jul 14 15:35:17 2008 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:35:17 +0200 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: References: <48785626.1050804@knowtion.net> Message-ID: <20080714133517.GA356@reiftel.karrenberg.net> Michael, Since you quote a work I co-authored, allow me respond: You state correctly that the current policy states that all IPv4 addresses allocated thorugh the Internet registry system according to the relevant policies at the time of allocation are unique regardless of their use. Policies are not natural laws, they can change over time. Usually they change whenever the environment or the requirements change. The operative change in this case is scarcity of unallocated IPv4 addresses which in turn will limit the growth of the Internet and the private IP networks alike. In this particluar case the operators of the Internet, *could* decide to change the uniqueness requirements such that IP addresses allocated via the present RIR system need only be unique as far as they are used on the Internet, for some definition of that. That would mean that IP addresses that were once guaranteed to be globally unique regardless of whether they were used on the Internet or private IP networks would no longer be guaranteed to be globally unique. Such a policy change would need to be designed and implemented carefully in order to enable all actors to make the necessary operational adjustments and to continue to guarantee registration and uniqueness within the newly defined domains. Such adjustments would almost certainly mean that operators of private or not widely announced IP networks would incur costs. On the other hand in the absence of such adjustments the operators of the Internet would incur costs because of the unavailability of IPv4 addresses. I am sure such trade-offs would be discussed vividly within BT. ;-) Responsible policy making will take into account these basic issues and adjust policies where necessary. In this particular case it is important to consider the likelihood of un-coordinated use of IPv4 addresses which are allocated but not widely used on the Internet and the associated operational costs as well as the consequential loss of credibility of the Internet registry system. Blindly insisting on the status-quo in the face of a changing environment is never helpful and often counter-productive. So I encourage those that favour "reclamation" propose concrete policies which take into account the issues which Michael raises. Making the right trade-offs is the art here. Most requirements are not as absolute as they may appear at first. One avenue to proceed could be to create multiple IPv4 address space registries ... boxes inside Pandora's ? Daniel From garry at glendown.de Mon Jul 14 19:33:01 2008 From: garry at glendown.de (Garry Glendown) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:33:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <487B81AF.1050407@inex.ie> References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87zloo15vc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <487B81AF.1050407@inex.ie> Message-ID: <487B8DCD.1090308@glendown.de> Nick Hilliard wrote: > Are you saying that revocation shouldn't happen? It means that all > assignments are given in perpetuity, unless the holder explicitly hands > the address space back. If the address space isn't used, or if the > holder disappears, then the address space is lost forever. It's a > memory leak which needs to be fixed. And even with knowing the v4 situation, als RIRs seem to be running into the same trap yet again, eyes closed ... Apart from technical issues (like e.g. no recommendations as to IP usage - do I need to quote people advocating use of /64 for PTP-Transfernetworks? How many machines do they actually expect to see on a Point-to-Point link?) Why not start doing it right while we still can - at least RIPE doesn't have PIv6 yet, so when better to start (and that is for all RIRs) ... Hand out PI only with either a reasonable yearly renewal fee (billed to the user, not the LIR getting it for them), or at least implement an active renewal policy - once a year, a user/company has 3 months to confirm continued use by a simple web interface (should take less than a week's work to program), with 3 final notices reminding them to actively do confirm use. If they don't answer or don't exist anymore, the space is automatically returned to the RIR for reuse (possibly with some internal grace period), as they obviously don't need it anymore. Also, put this in the contract and you're pretty much safe. Is this really so hard to implement? Is there any provider that could be opposed to such a handling? After all, any of you having PA already are in the same position - you pay yearly dues to keep your IP space. The same should apply to already given out PI space, though I do understand the problem of contacting owners of some ancient PI registrations - but maybe some legal advocate could point out whether the requirement to have your RIPE db data up to date could be used as a basis to reclaim IP space from people that can't be contacted and whose space isn't in the global routing tables ... Anyway, anybody falling into the "no more IPv4 addresses" pit in some 18-36 months is at his own fault for not preparing for v6 in time ... Yes it costs money (both for hard/software and time spent), but v4 is a dead man walking, so don't wait until he's strapped down and waiting for the switch to be flicked ... -garry From randy at psg.com Tue Jul 15 12:23:43 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:23:43 -0700 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: <20080714133517.GA356@reiftel.karrenberg.net> References: <48785626.1050804@knowtion.net> <20080714133517.GA356@reiftel.karrenberg.net> Message-ID: <487C7AAF.5000606@psg.com> > That would mean that IP addresses that were once guaranteed to be > globally unique regardless of whether they were used on the Internet or > private IP networks would no longer be guaranteed to be globally unique. not really. that requirement was a very likely enforcable contract. wanna find out? break it. randy From gert at space.net Tue Jul 15 12:29:01 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:29:01 +0200 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: <487C7AAF.5000606@psg.com> References: <48785626.1050804@knowtion.net> <20080714133517.GA356@reiftel.karrenberg.net> <487C7AAF.5000606@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080715102901.GB11038@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 03:23:43AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > > That would mean that IP addresses that were once guaranteed to be > > globally unique regardless of whether they were used on the Internet or > > private IP networks would no longer be guaranteed to be globally unique. > > not really. that requirement was a very likely enforcable contract. > wanna find out? break it. Actually this is an interesting side track, so I'll bite - "enforcable contract between *which* two parties"? Especially for "legacy" assignments, done by InterNIC to a company that has been sold and bought 5 times in the meantime... For PA assignments being done under the current RIR system, I agree with you. For PI assignments in the RIPE region (dunno about other regions), it's less clear, because no contracts exist between RIPE NCC and the address holder... 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 Tue Jul 15 12:30:47 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:30:47 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080715101706.GA11038@Space.Net> References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87zloo15vc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <487B81AF.1050407@inex.ie> <487B8E80.6030005@nethinks.com> <487C72E3.7030707@titley.com> <487C73F2.9020101@psg.com> <20080715101706.GA11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: <487C7C57.5010501@psg.com> >> as one of those who think arin's approach to this is insulting and >> legally unjustified, i would be quite cheered by a more even-handed and >> less self-righteous example being set by ripe. > So what do you propose how to tackle this? i was supporting nigel saying that the board was working on a reasonable and fair contractual structure. i have nothing against offering holders of historical space reasonable contracts for keeping whois and rpki certificates and dns delegation. i do have a problem of confiscating their rights if they choose not to sign. instead of escalating threats and breaching the long established contract, perhaps hesitation to sign can be treated as problem in communication and maybe a weakness in common understanding of rights, concerns, ... we are all a community. we do have fairly common interests. perhaps there is a path building on the common ground instead of polarizing and us and them games. > I assume that you don't worry about requiring the contracts for *new* > end-user assignments, but only worry about retroactively applying those? i am more open than that. i hope/think there is a large space for agreement on formalizing the relationship(s) over historical space. take a look at section nine of the arin contract. it is that kind of thing to which i object. randy From nick at inex.ie Tue Jul 15 12:42:10 2008 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:42:10 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <487C7C57.5010501@psg.com> References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87zloo15vc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <487B81AF.1050407@inex.ie> <487B8E80.6030005@nethinks.com> <487C72E3.7030707@titley.com> <487C73F2.9020101@psg.com> <20080715101706.GA11038@Space.Net> <487C7C57.5010501@psg.com> Message-ID: <487C7F02.3070609@inex.ie> > take a look at section nine of the arin contract. it is that kind of > thing to which i object. Randy, for the benefit of those people who are unfamiliar with ARIN's procedures, could you provide a URL reference here? Nick From randy at psg.com Tue Jul 15 12:50:40 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:50:40 -0700 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: <20080715102901.GB11038@Space.Net> References: <48785626.1050804@knowtion.net> <20080714133517.GA356@reiftel.karrenberg.net> <487C7AAF.5000606@psg.com> <20080715102901.GB11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: <487C8100.9020307@psg.com> of course the rules of 'contract' vary between cultures. and i am not a lawyer. i am told that in the states, one does not need paper, it is an exchange with an understanding. e.g. handshakes can be enforced if shown to be unequivocal. i am advised (that is american for i asked a lawyer:) that allocations by the internic had reasonable expectations of uniqueness, long term 'ownership', etc. in our hearts we all pretty much know 98% what the expectation was and still is. and remember, the historical holders, even in ripe's region, received those allocations from the states, from an agency operating under a usg contract, and all that stuff. so maybe finessing these juristictional issues would be worth some friendliness in negotiation a new social contract in the ripe region. :) in the case of arin, there were specific guarantees given to the usg regarding historical space. i happened to be the one doing the presos to the usg to get arin formed (i was a founding board member of arin), so you can look at, for one example, the last bullet on slide nine of . i would not want to have to defend in court confiscating someone's property/rights/whayever for which there was any question or doubt. i suspect that the words 'ownerless' and 'revocation' in the $subject would be very hard to define, measure, and defend. perhaps there is another approach to these problems. is not what we really want to have the whois, dns, and rpki for historical space accurate? perhaps there are other approaches to accuracy than confiscation/stealing. randy From randy at psg.com Tue Jul 15 13:00:40 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:00:40 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <487C7F02.3070609@inex.ie> References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87zloo15vc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <487B81AF.1050407@inex.ie> <487B8E80.6030005@nethinks.com> <487C72E3.7030707@titley.com> <487C73F2.9020101@psg.com> <20080715101706.GA11038@Space.Net> <487C7C57.5010501@psg.com> <487C7F02.3070609@inex.ie> Message-ID: <487C8358.2040809@psg.com> Nick Hilliard wrote: >> take a look at section nine of the arin contract. it is that kind of >> thing to which i object. > for the benefit of those people who are unfamiliar with ARIN's > procedures, could you provide a URL reference here? i just looked at arin's front page, saw the link in big blue on the right hand side, and found the link prominently noted on the linked page. randy, why use the web when you have me? From nigel at titley.com Tue Jul 15 13:04:27 2008 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:04:27 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <487C7C57.5010501@psg.com> References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87zloo15vc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <487B81AF.1050407@inex.ie> <487B8E80.6030005@nethinks.com> <487C72E3.7030707@titley.com> <487C73F2.9020101@psg.com> <20080715101706.GA11038@Space.Net> <487C7C57.5010501@psg.com> Message-ID: <487C843B.4030300@titley.com> Randy Bush wrote: > i was supporting nigel saying that the board was working on a reasonable > and fair contractual structure. i have nothing against offering holders > of historical space reasonable contracts for keeping whois and rpki > certificates and dns delegation. > I am hoping fervently that we can come up with something fair and just (for some definition of those two words). And I thank you, Randy, for your support. Nigel From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Jul 15 13:15:28 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:15:28 +0100 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: <20080715102901.GB11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: > Especially for "legacy" assignments, done by InterNIC to a > company that has been sold and bought 5 times in the meantime... In the case of ARIN, you have to sign a new Registration Services Agreement if the company name changes. I just went through this for resources registered to CompanyName, Inc. where the network assets are now owned by CompanyName Americas, Inc. Same company name, but ARIN requires the Registration Services Agreement to be formally signed by an officer of the new corporate name. I'm beginning to think that it was simple the *WRONG* decision to try and bundle together the issue of registration services contracts for PI assignments going forward, and migrating existing PI holders into a contractual relationship. I believe we have consensus on requiring a contract to be signed for any future assignments/allocations. --Michael Dillon From slz at baycix.de Tue Jul 15 13:21:31 2008 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:21:31 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period(Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <487A9F83.2C2A80E4@ix.netcom.com> References: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> <20080710072830.GD11038@Space.Net> <487AF3EF.50303@baycix.de> <487A9F83.2C2A80E4@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <487C883B.7090606@baycix.de> Hi again, Jeffrey A. Williams schrieb: > Sascha and all, > > Sure changing policies can be done on a daily basis. But what > does that say for stability? Not much IMO. Setting a good long > term policy is far better and again IMHO, necessary. > > Sascha Lenz wrote: [...] things are constantly changing; change is good if it's for the better. Policies get changed all the time if the need arises. That has nothing to do with stability, since there is no stability. Stability can also be bad, we wouldn't even exist if everything was in perfect equilibration. ==> This damned little discussion about absolutely irrelevant details currently hinders the further policy development long enought now, like - amongst other things - the "PIv6 policy". This is not acceptable any longer! Please folks, let us put this version in place now. You can continue your discussions later, noone will get instantly shot, no IP space will be withdrawn and noone will have to file bankruptcy at least for a while :-) after the policy is in place. There is absolutely no sane reason why we wouldn't go on with this version now for starters. It's as good as any other possible version, you won't reach 100% consensus at any given time. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ======================================================================== From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Jul 15 13:22:14 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:22:14 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <487C7C57.5010501@psg.com> Message-ID: > take a look at section nine of the arin contract. it is that > kind of thing to which i object. 9. NO PROPERTY RIGHTS Legacy Applicant acknowledges and agrees that the number resources are not property (real, personal, or intellectual) and that Legacy Applicant does not have any property rights in or to the Included Number Resources, including but not limited by this Legacy Agreement or the prior issuance of these resources to it. Legacy Applicant further agrees that it will not attempt, directly or indirectly, to obtain or assert any trademark, service mark, copyright, or any other form of property rights in any included number resources in the United States or any other country. This is identical to section 9 of the normal ARIN RSA and it is consistent with RFC 2050 as well. Why do you object? --Michael Dillon From nick at inex.ie Tue Jul 15 13:37:26 2008 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:37:26 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <487C8358.2040809@psg.com> References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87zloo15vc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <487B81AF.1050407@inex.ie> <487B8E80.6030005@nethinks.com> <487C72E3.7030707@titley.com> <487C73F2.9020101@psg.com> <20080715101706.GA11038@Space.Net> <487C7C57.5010501@psg.com> <487C7F02.3070609@inex.ie> <487C8358.2040809@psg.com> Message-ID: <487C8BF6.4080709@inex.ie> > i just looked at arin's front page, saw the link in big blue on the > right hand side, and found the link prominently noted on the linked page. > > Indeed. In fact, I had downloaded this document a full two minutes before sending my previous email, looked at section 9, decided that it was pretty unobjectionable, and therefore thought that this probably wasn't what you were talking about. Clearly, we find different things objectionable. > randy, why use the web when you have me? Because we love and trust you more than the web? And also something about semantic analysis of what you mean by "arin contract". There are more than one of these. Seriously, though, you have objections to 2007-01, a subset of which are scattered here and there in the 8 or so emails that you've sent to apwg in the last couple of days. So, for the benefit of everyone, can I repeat my request of earlier this morning: - could you outline all the things that you feel are objectionable in 2007-01? - could you express an opinion of how these should be changed for the better? Nick From clive at demon.net Tue Jul 15 13:04:09 2008 From: clive at demon.net (Clive D.W. Feather) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:04:09 +0100 Subject: Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01... In-Reply-To: <487C8100.9020307@psg.com> References: <48785626.1050804@knowtion.net> <20080714133517.GA356@reiftel.karrenberg.net> <487C7AAF.5000606@psg.com> <20080715102901.GB11038@Space.Net> <487C8100.9020307@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080715110409.GT67806@finch-staff-1.thus.net> Randy Bush said: > of course the rules of 'contract' vary between cultures. and i am not a > lawyer. i am told that in the states, one does not need paper, it is an > exchange with an understanding. e.g. handshakes can be enforced if > shown to be unequivocal. True. However, at least in England, a contract requires "consideration". That is, each side must be giving something to the other. I have trouble seeing where that is in the case of an IP address allocation. I don't know whether US law recognises the concept or not. In Scotland consideration is not required, so the situation may be different. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 Internet Expert | Home: | Fax: +44 870 051 9937 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646 THUS plc | | From fw at deneb.enyo.de Tue Jul 15 21:00:05 2008 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:00:05 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <487C8358.2040809@psg.com> (Randy Bush's message of "Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:00:40 -0700") References: <487712B1.1050304@psg.com> <20080711130856.GB19810@borg.c-l-i.net> <87zloo15vc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <487B81AF.1050407@inex.ie> <487B8E80.6030005@nethinks.com> <487C72E3.7030707@titley.com> <487C73F2.9020101@psg.com> <20080715101706.GA11038@Space.Net> <487C7C57.5010501@psg.com> <487C7F02.3070609@inex.ie> <487C8358.2040809@psg.com> Message-ID: <877ibngeh6.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * Randy Bush: > i just looked at arin's front page, saw the link in big blue on the > right hand side, and found the link prominently noted on the linked page. > > Is this the "no property rights" section? | 9. NO PROPERTY RIGHTS | Legacy Applicant acknowledges and agrees that the number resources | are not property (real, personal, or intellectual) and that Legacy | Applicant does not have any property rights in or to the Included | Number Resources, including but not limited by this Legacy Agreement | or the prior issuance of these resources to it. Legacy Applicant | further agrees that it will not attempt, directly or indirectly, to | obtain or assert any trademark, service mark, copyright, or any other | form of property rights in any included number resources in the | United States or any other country. I thought that this was somehow part of the assignment rules in the RIPE region, but I can;t find it in the relevant documents. Am I wrong? From clive at demon.net Tue Jul 15 10:05:13 2008 From: clive at demon.net (Clive D.W. Feather) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:05:13 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <6317CE8B-2253-4893-B3A6-BF499000C1A1@multicasttech.com> References: <6317CE8B-2253-4893-B3A6-BF499000C1A1@multicasttech.com> Message-ID: <20080715080513.GC67806@finch-staff-1.thus.net> Marshall Eubanks said: > If the phone company called me up and said, "we are changing your > phone number starting August 1, have > a nice day," I would get pretty upset, and I know a lot of businesses > that would get upset. I dare say that > some would sue. It's happened twice to me at home, and three times in the office. I know you have area code changes in the US. I know these aren't quite analogous, but they involve similar levels of disruption. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 Internet Expert | Home: | Fax: +44 870 051 9937 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646 THUS plc | | From kelaidi at ote.gr Thu Jul 17 08:48:58 2008 From: kelaidi at ote.gr (Kelaidi Christina) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:48:58 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) Message-ID: Dear Milton and colleagues ETNO, in coming to the position that it did, considered the transfer issue from all angles, and the points that you raised in your e-mail were part of that consideration.?ETNO will continue to contribute the RIPE mailing list in the future but see no reason at this stage to change its position. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues WG Chairperson From filiz at ripe.net Tue Jul 22 17:23:01 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:23:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-03 Last Call for Comments (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space) Message-ID: <20080722152301.327E62F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2008-03 Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2008-03 is now at its Concluding Phase. The Address Policy Working Group Chairs determined that the working group reached consensus at the end of the Review Phase, so the proposal is now moved to a Last Call for Comments. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-03.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 19 August 2008. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From lutz at iks-jena.de Wed Jul 23 09:32:12 2008 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:32:12 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-03 Last Call for Comments (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space) In-Reply-To: <20080722152301.327E62F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080722152301.327E62F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <200807230732.m6N7WDsb003736@belenus.iks-jena.de> > PDP Number: 2008-03 > Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space Which addresses do we talk about? According to http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ the last remaining space is 240/4. From jeroen at unfix.org Wed Jul 23 12:04:39 2008 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:04:39 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-03 Last Call for Comments (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space) In-Reply-To: <200807230732.m6N7WDsb003736@belenus.iks-jena.de> References: <20080722152301.327E62F583@herring.ripe.net> <200807230732.m6N7WDsb003736@belenus.iks-jena.de> Message-ID: <48870237.9020605@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Lutz Donnerhacke wrote: >> PDP Number: 2008-03 >> Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space > > Which addresses do we talk about? > > According to http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ the last > remaining space is 240/4. I force loaded it with wget, but I still see a lot of "UNALLOCATED" blocks there. 240/4 is RESERVED though and can't ever be used simply because of some hardware&software treating it as special. 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 nominations at ripe.net Mon Jul 28 14:13:36 2008 From: nominations at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:13:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] NRO NC call for nominations Message-ID: <488DB7F0.4020809@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, This is a call for nominations from the RIPE NCC service region to fill one vacant seat on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number council (NC). The term of Wilfried Woeber, who was appointed to the NRO NC by the RIPE NCC Executive Board in January 2006, ends on 31 December 2008. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will select one representative from the nominees to serve a three-year term on the NRO NCC beginning 1 January 2009. The decision of the Executive Board will be announced at the RIPE 57 Meeting, which will be held in Dubai, UAE, from 26-30 October 2008. The deadline for nominations is 22 September 2008. Any individual residing within the RIPE NCC service region is eligible for nomination, except Regional Internet Registry (RIR) staff members. Self-nominations are permitted. Please send your nominations to by 23:00 UTC on 22 September 2008. To find out more about the NRO NC and the election process, please see: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2008/ Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC Important Dates: 22 September 2008: Deadline for NRO NC nominations 10 October 2008: Deadline for all confirmed nominations to be posted on the RIPE NCC website 27 October 2008: Result of the selection announced at the RIPE 57 Meeting in Dubai, UAE From nominations at ripe.net Mon Jul 28 14:13:36 2008 From: nominations at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:13:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-announce] NRO NC call for nominations Message-ID: <488DB7F0.4020809@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, This is a call for nominations from the RIPE NCC service region to fill one vacant seat on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number council (NC). The term of Wilfried Woeber, who was appointed to the NRO NC by the RIPE NCC Executive Board in January 2006, ends on 31 December 2008. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will select one representative from the nominees to serve a three-year term on the NRO NCC beginning 1 January 2009. The decision of the Executive Board will be announced at the RIPE 57 Meeting, which will be held in Dubai, UAE, from 26-30 October 2008. The deadline for nominations is 22 September 2008. Any individual residing within the RIPE NCC service region is eligible for nomination, except Regional Internet Registry (RIR) staff members. Self-nominations are permitted. Please send your nominations to by 23:00 UTC on 22 September 2008. To find out more about the NRO NC and the election process, please see: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2008/ Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC Important Dates: 22 September 2008: Deadline for NRO NC nominations 10 October 2008: Deadline for all confirmed nominations to be posted on the RIPE NCC website 27 October 2008: Result of the selection announced at the RIPE 57 Meeting in Dubai, UAE