From michael.dillon at bt.com Sun Jun 1 11:59:53 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 10:59:53 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09 In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20080530150854.047a0600@lacnic.net> References: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> <7.0.1.0.1.20080530150854.047a0600@lacnic.net> Message-ID: > I am curious about other situation. > Suppose that IANA allocates the last 2 /8s to the RIR A and > one day later IANA receives a request from the RIR B that is > running out of > IPv4 addresses while the RIR A has (at least) 2 /8s. I don't think that IANA would ever do this because it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. Since I have never heard IANA being accused of gross incompetence before, I have to believe that when they receive that request from RIR A, they will ask all the other RIRs about how many addresses they need before allocating anything. In fact, I expect IANA to do this well before the last 2 /8 blocks. Then, after consulting all RIRs, I expect IANA to publish their intentions and ask for comments before allocating any blocks. This is just good business practice and I don't think that the RIRs need to write policies which tell IANA to do this. --Michael Dillon From raul at lacnic.net Mon Jun 2 16:49:00 2008 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:49:00 -0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09 In-Reply-To: References: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> <7.0.1.0.1.20080530150854.047a0600@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20080602114707.04162e68@lacnic.net> Michael: I disagree with you. RIR YES would need a policy for doing what you are suggesting. In fact, the policy proposed is a particular case of what you are suggestign. When there are only 5 /8s IANA ask all the RIRs what would be your future (short term) needs. And obviously the answer would be "At least one /8". Ra?l At 06:59 a.m. 01/06/2008, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > I am curious about other situation. > > Suppose that IANA allocates the last 2 /8s to the RIR A and > > one day later IANA receives a request from the RIR B that is > > running out of > > IPv4 addresses while the RIR A has (at least) 2 /8s. > >I don't think that IANA would ever do this because it would be >an incredibly stupid thing to do. Since I have never heard IANA >being accused of gross incompetence before, I have to believe >that when they receive that request from RIR A, they will ask all >the other RIRs about how many addresses they need before allocating >anything. In fact, I expect IANA to do this well before the last >2 /8 blocks. Then, after consulting all RIRs, I expect IANA to >publish their intentions and ask for comments before allocating >any blocks. > >This is just good business practice and I don't think that the RIRs >need to write policies which tell IANA to do this. > >--Michael Dillon > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1474 >- Release Date: 30/05/2008 07:44 a.m. From drc at virtualized.org Mon Jun 2 17:32:49 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:32:49 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09 In-Reply-To: References: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> <7.0.1.0.1.20080530150854.047a0600@lacnic.net> Message-ID: Michael, On Jun 1, 2008, at 2:59 AM, wrote: > I don't think that IANA would ever do this because it would be > an incredibly stupid thing to do. Since I have never heard IANA > being accused of gross incompetence before, Well, IANA staff get accused of this less often these days (:-)). > I have to believe > that when they receive that request from RIR A, they will ask all > the other RIRs about how many addresses they need before allocating > anything. Current policy does not dictate IANA do this. As the v4 free pool is depleted (particularly as the free pool approaches 10 /8s), I suspect (hope?) there will be greater communication amongst the RIRs. > In fact, I expect IANA to do this well before the last > 2 /8 blocks. Then, after consulting all RIRs, I expect IANA to > publish their intentions and ask for comments before allocating > any blocks. This would be a significant change to existing policy and as such, is not something IANA could implement unilaterally. Whether there is sufficient time left for this to be defined as a "global policy" might be an interesting question. > This is just good business practice and I don't think that the RIRs > need to write policies which tell IANA to do this. I suspect you misunderstand the relationship between the RIRs and IANA. Regards, -drc From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Jun 2 17:44:03 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:44:03 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09 In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20080602114707.04162e68@lacnic.net> References: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> <7.0.1.0.1.20080530150854.047a0600@lacnic.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20080602114707.04162e68@lacnic.net> Message-ID: > I disagree with you. RIR YES would need a policy for doing > what you are suggesting. > In fact, the policy proposed is a particular case of what you > are suggestign. > > When there are only 5 /8s IANA ask all the RIRs what would be > your future (short term) needs. And obviously the answer > would be "At least one /8". If I were IANA then that would not be an acceptable answer. At some point, IANA will be allocating large percentages of the global free supply of IPv4 addresses to RIRs and they will have to satisfy themselves that they are not treating the other 5 RIRs unfairly. In the scenario that you describe, you expect IANA to give out 20% of the total IPv4 address space just because you claim that you need it. This is not sufficient. At a minimum, you should justify your request by showing the full status of all your previous IPv4 allocations and this information should be made public. After that, all other RIRs and the public should have an opportunity to file comments with IANA. Finally, after considering all the comments, IANA should decide how many IP addresses to allocate. IANA would be within its rights to begin doing this tomorrow, not waiting for the last 5 /8s. My main concern with all these types of proposals is that they should not cause an IPv4 address shortage to happen sooner than it would happen without intervention. Some proposals, like the one which locks up the last 5 /8 blocks would cause shortage effects sooner, and are therefore bad. However, if IANA/ICANN starts taking its responsibility seriously and applies more scrutiny, in public, of all RIR allocations, then we would be unlikely to cause shortage effects earlier. But IANA and ICANN need to take the initiative on this, not wait for the RIR/NRO two to three year policy cycle. The criteria for RIR allocations can and should vary on a case by case basis. For one thing, I'm aware that the RIRs have a lot of addresses tied up in "reserved" status which should be taken into account when analyzing the overall picture. I'm also aware that by taking up the slack, we may extend IPv4's lifetime by another year or two but when we do run out it will be like hitting a brick wall. Nevertheless, companies which cannot implement IPv6, within the next two to three years, are failing in their duty to shareholders and customers. I don't think we should be trying to protect these companies in any way, just extend things as far as we can into the future to give time for the network operator and vendor project cycles to deliver results. In the current world of business, project cycles are longer than they used to be back in the early 1990s. Many people don't like this but we have to live with it, since we all depend on other companies to play their role in IPv6 deployment. We need better support on the hardware, we need upgraded OSS/NMS software, firewalls, load balancers, and consumer broadband gateways. In addition we need scalable v6/v4 translation clusters. Any policy changes, and behavior changes, need to support all these companies in providing the necessary upgrades within their plodding project cycles. I don't think that the proposals currently before any of the RIRs do this, and I don't believe that the RIR/NRO policy processes work quickly enough to deal with this issue. Only ICANN and IANA can take the needed action in the required amount of time. Fortunately ICANN is also an open and responsive organization so we have a chance to fix this in their forums. -- Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Mon Jun 2 17:45:43 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:45:43 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09 In-Reply-To: References: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> <7.0.1.0.1.20080530150854.047a0600@lacnic.net> Message-ID: > I suspect you misunderstand the relationship between the RIRs > and IANA. Actually, I thought I was talking about the relationship between ICANN and IANA. --Michael Dillon From gih at apnic.net Mon Jun 2 20:31:08 2008 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 04:31:08 +1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09 In-Reply-To: <4840A34E.6070407@netability.ie> References: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> <4840A34E.6070407@netability.ie> Message-ID: <48443C6C.7040908@apnic.net> Nick Hilliard wrote: > David Conrad wrote: >> Suppose we fast forward to ~2011 and you've just been rejected by >> RIPE-NCC because they have no more address space to hand out whereas >> AfriNIC and LACNIC both have (at least) a full /8. >> >> I'm curious: what do you think is going to happen? > > As you note, the concept of "fairness" is a rather difficult notion. > Neither 2008-03 nor 2007-09 are going to stop the inevitable squabbling > that's going to happen: "It's not fair - they have a /8 and we don't > have any. Waah!", or "I'm not going to share my /8 with you. No, you > CAN'T HAVE IT! Waah! I'm going to tell on you!! Daaaaaddddyyyyyyy!" The more general observation is that there is no objective concept of "fairness" in such a situation. So as we try and figure out what changes (if any) should be made to the current distribution framework within the time available the challenge is that we are never going to be able to make the increasingly finite pool of remaining IPv4 addresses comfortably encompass the continuing sequence of needs that are expressed in address allocation requests. So if the aim of such tweaks is to maximise "fairness" then I for one get lost pretty quickly in understanding precisely what that means. And if the challenge is to make the finite become infinite, then we are not exactly making good use of what time remains. It's not that I'm trying to belittle the various arguments here, but what appears to me is that there is a certain shuffling of perceived future cost burden here - it appears that many folk see no advantage in early adoption of IPv6 and indeed perceive it as a penalty and a cost, and are therefore wanting to secure their own future source of IPv4 resources with the attendant consequence of forcing others into a position of necessity to confront IPv6 deployment sooner rather than later. This is being played out within each RIR (large vs small allocation debates, for example) and across the RIRs with policy debates such as these. However, its not clear (to me) that there is any overwhemlingly "right" answer here, nor is it clear (to me) that with more time to cogitate and debate the issue that we'll come up with any such solution. What is clearer (to me) is that what we are lacking here is a general sense of confidence that we can make this transition operate efficiently, effectively and safely, and part of the fuel for this debate over the last /8 may be interpreted as a perceived reluctance to just get on with what needs to be done in terms of network and service engineering. My suspicion is that if we were more confident that we understand what transition really meant, in terms of engineering, products, services, infrastructure, business, competitive positioning, lines of supply, etc, etc, then this entire policy discussion over what remains in the IPv4 pool would perhaps be of lesser importance in the grander scheme of things Internet. Geoff (speaking entirely for myself, naturally!) From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Tue Jun 3 13:36:16 2008 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:36:16 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09 In-Reply-To: References: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> Message-ID: <48452CB0.4000606@heanet.ie> David Conrad wrote: > Brian, > > On May 30, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Brian Nisbet wrote: >> If both policies were introduced then I can easily >> envisage a scenario where a bigger RIR uses up its /8, then starts >> to nibble away at the remaining addresses of those who will be slower >> to allocate their space, ie AfriNIC and LACNIC, thus defeating the >> purpose of fairness that I see inherent in 2008-03. The worse case >> scenario here, for the less developed RIRs at least, is that they >> may see very little of that last /8. > > Suppose we fast forward to ~2011 and you've just been rejected by > RIPE-NCC because they have no more address space to hand out whereas > AfriNIC and LACNIC both have (at least) a full /8. > > I'm curious: what do you think is going to happen? I suspect that any answer I would give to such a question would be very non-standard due to the research and education space in which I work and given that our core network has been dual stacked for some years and we're doing everything we can to educate our clients and extend the v6 rollout as quickly as possible. So the scenario above is very unlikely to come to pass. In a different organisation the answer may well be "get addresses from anywhere we can" leading to situations under potential market conditions or an attempt to make oneself a legitimate customer of a different RIR, but both are ultimately exercises in holding back the tide for a little while. 2007-09 is much the same thing, in my eyes, while 2008-03 allows for a little more vision of when things are going to happen and possibly even a reduction of the inevitable panic. And considering some of the issues over PI space contracts and ERX addresses and the like that's going on right now, I dread to think what's going to happen if the space for which an organisation or LIR is contracting actually comes from that RIR over there via an RIR which is, in fact, a LIR. Brian. From remco at virtu.nl Tue Jun 3 21:14:34 2008 From: remco at virtu.nl (Remco van Mook (Virtu)) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:14:34 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08: response to ETNO position Message-ID: Dear all, and in particular the representatives of ETNO, ? Let me first thank ETNO for taking the effort, twice, to make a valuable contribution to the discussion surrounding the 'Afterlife' of IPv4 in the form of position papers. It is good to see that we all seem to agree on the following fundamentals: ? - The available free pool of "allocatable" IPv4 addresses will run out - quite likely by 2012. - The existing IPv4 network will continue to operate for many decades to come. - There will still be demand for IPv4 addresses. - After the available pool of IPv4 addresses is exhausted, needs (even limited) will continue to appear that are provided with other options - The only long-term solution to the "unavailability" of IPv4 addresses is the widespread adoption and deployment of IPv6 infrastructure, transport and client services. ? (This is pretty much a literal copy from the ETNO position; I could have used my presentations on the subject as a source as well) ? The other point that most of us will readily agree with, is that we don't like markets. Markets for IPv4, of course. I'm not particularly fond of the idea, either. I would encourage anyone who is completely in favor of an IPv4 market to establish to visit the next ICANN meeting and see first hand what a thriving market has arisen in the domain name space. ? But there the agreement stops. ? Let me first rephrase what 2007-08 is about, before responding to ETNO's position. 2007-08 is about setting up a framework for (IPv4) resource transfers between LIRs. Nothing more, nothing less. No IPv6, no ASNs. No PI, no ERX. It is a framework in the sense that, in my opinion, it encompasses the absolute minimum set of policy changes required for this to happen without immediately shooting ourselves in the foot. It is a starting point, not an end point for transfer policies. ? It does not create a market. ? We don't stop making policies right after passing this one; the proposed framework can be adapted, altered, even abandoned if we see as a community see fit. ? The point about moving on urgently with 2007-08 is that it does make a significant impact on how the RIRs run their shop. Implementing and testing 2007-08 takes time, probably a lot of time. Having it in place before the RIRs run out means that we at least have policy we can execute when we run out. Current policy would even allow a single request for a large block of addresses to completely clean out the reserves a RIR might still have in smaller available blocks. But I digress. ? ETNO, in its position paper, provides a number of principles that a 'post-IPv4' (ETNO's term, not mine) world should obey. I'll mention them shortly and then reply. ? 1) Identification of legitimate use ? ETNO would like, in short, to be able to identify parties that have genuine rights of use over IPv4 address prefixes. It is also argued that this can only be done globally, not regionally because that 'will be unworkable'. This global approach must also be in place long before the period in which IPv4 is harder to get. ? While I agree that we need to keep track on who has rights on what - it is one of the key points of 2007-08 - doing it globally would mean abandoning all RIR databases for a global registry. And this global registry is required as of today. As you all know, IPv4 is already harder to get; policy has changed last year so LIRs can only get enough for a 1 year period rather than a 2 year period. In my opinion, this is a 'pie in the sky' idea. It is unlikely for a global policy to establish itself within any reasonable time if that policy would abandon the single most significant asset of any RIR; their database. ? 2) Transparency ? Any decision regarding allocation or assignment must be done in a transparent and public way and consistent with the bottom-up policy process. Any deficiencies should be removed from policy before then. And globally, of course. ? I fully agree on transparency. What I fail to see is what is meant with 'public way' and why 2007-08 would fall short of that mark. The RIRs don't currently make the arguments based on which an LIR receives an allocation public, either. When IPv4 space moves hands because of a merger or acquisition this doesn't happen either. That's all current bottom-up policy. ? 3) Fair and neutral reuse ? All recovered address space should be recycled in a globally synchronized fashion. RIRs should work harder recovering IPv4 space. ? I think that this is a good idea, but let's not overestimate what IANA and the RIRs are able to recover. Current global demand is among the lines of 13 /8s a year. Taking low-hanging fruit that has already been recovered into account we can perhaps recycle another dozen /8s. Recovering those will take years. The same goes for re-tasking any experimental or reserved space to 'global unicast'. It would take years to accomplish and only have a very limited impact. As I've said in one of my presentations, even if we were to find a brand new and completely empty IPv4 space somewhere (which will not happen) we'd probably use that up in a decade as well. The fundamental issue is consumption, not lack of production. ? 4) Self-regulation ? Allocation of IPv4 addresses should always be guided and regulated by the bottom-up process of the RIRs. ? Fully agreed. What we probably do not agree upon is what comes out of this process. In addition, one of my main reasons for pushing 2007-08 is that I would very much like that the RIRs stay relevant and the process stays in place. Removing IPv4 from the grasp of the RIRs (and therefore also from the bottom-up policy process) is the single most significant risk of not facing the 'afterlife' in a timely fashion. The moment the RIRs say 'no you can't have more space and you're not allowed to get it anywhere else' is the moment the world turns to another place for that resource. ? I find it curious that ETNO puts significant effort into writing position papers such as this one and not join us in that bottom-up process, but that's a different matter. ? 5) No connection between IPv4 and IPv6 ? Policies we make for the 'afterlife' of IPv4 should not affect any policy with regard to IPv6. ? Yes. 2007-08 is in compliance with that. ? In another chapter, ETNO also addresses a few aspects they think should be taken under consideration. In their point of view, we can either get a reclaim/reuse model or a transfer model. I think we can get both, provided we change allocation policy so that a single request can not wipe out carefully built-up reserves. This falls outside of 2007-08 or any other current policy proposal but I'd expect a proposal sooner rather than later. ? In describing transfers, ETNO argues that transfers are the first step towards a market. That is false. It is the first step towards a market under the control of the RIRs and the current bottom-up policy process we all know and love. A market will evolve whether we accommodate it or not. ? The report also reiterates that by adopting transfers we abandon that bottom-up policy process. I don't remember putting that in my proposal - perhaps I should read it again. ? To finish up, the ETNO paper worries about the options RIRs might have to enforce policies in a transfer situation. I'll let you in on a secret: how many times has a conflict been brought to the RIPE NCC arbitration council? Once. Just one. That either means that we all gladly and completely abide set policy or that the real world options RIRs have to enforce policy are limited in the first place. I'll let you choose. ? In summary: ? Thanks for bearing with me - this is quite a bit longer than I anticipated it to be. ? The ETNO position paper gives us a fascinating view of the 'afterlife' and tells us that none of the options we currently have will be an acceptable substitute for the IANA free pool from the ETNO perspective. It also tells us that we should abandon regional policy while at the same time keeping the current bottom-up policy process. This puzzles me.? ? The one reason I could find in the entire paper why ETNO does not like 2007-08 is that it does not like the idea of a market. Neither do I. But 2007-08 is not about a market. It is a fallacy to think that any of us can either create a market or prevent one from being created. That is particularly so in an environment that will have global demand and (potentially) supply. 2007-08 is about staying relevant in an environment where a market evolves. ? I am fully aware that an evolving market will bring all sorts of interest, not in the last place from regulators. But it's not the regulators we should fear; letting it all slip through our hands is what we should worry about. Creating a transfer policy shows that we as a community can be part of a solution and show good stewardship, not just part (and cause) of the problem. People who are part of the solution will have a seat at the table - the people who merely caused the problem will not. ? Inaction is not a sign of good stewardship. So we need to be seen doing something, preferably something that will make a difference. So let's consider the alternatives: either we enable transfers or we prevent running out of IPv4 space. I can come up with a policy proposal for that as well - I'm positive you're going to like it even less than this one. If we would only allow justification for new v4 allocations to be based on servers and network infrastructure and not on 'eyeballs' we'd see our consumption rate evaporate overnight and the IANA free pool will last us at least a decade longer, while at the same time forcing the 'eyeballs' to move to IPv6. Think that's a better idea? Personally, I think not. ? I would urge ETNO to become part of this discussion and work with the community in our prized bottom-up policy process, rather than setting limits to what can and can not be discussed an not coming up with solutions themselves. ? I thank you for your time and look forward to your responses. ? Best, ? Remco van Mook (no hats) ? ? ? From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Jun 4 12:59:21 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 11:59:21 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08: response to ETNO position In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Let me first rephrase what 2007-08 is about, before > responding to ETNO's position. 2007-08 is about setting up a > framework for (IPv4) resource transfers between LIRs. Nothing > more, nothing less. No IPv6, no ASNs. No PI, no ERX. It is a > framework in the sense that, in my opinion, it encompasses > the absolute minimum set of policy changes required for this > to happen without immediately shooting ourselves in the foot. > It is a starting point, not an end point for transfer policies. However, we already have a framework for IP address transfers between LIRs which works substantially the same in all RIR regions. If it involves a change in corporate ownership, you simply need to show proof of the change and that the network is still operating under the new entity. The RIR then updates all records showing the new ownership. Or you give the address block back to the RIR because you no longer need it, and some other LIR will get those addresses at some point in the future. This framework works. There is no reason to believe that it would cease working as IPv6 deployment picks up. Most network operators are undertaking some form of audit of their internal use of IP addresses in preparation for the shortage, which means that as IPv6 picks up, they should know when they have surplus IPv4 addresses and can return them to RIPE or whatever RIR they came from. If it is not broken, then why would we want to change this framework? You claim that this will speed up the process of transfers but I cannot see how adding a new set of transfer rules will speed up anything. Even though you claim that this is an LIR-to-LIR transfer without RIPE involvement, this is not true since there are various rules which RIPE must administer and RIPE can disallow a transfer if, for instance, an LIR has received a re-allocation within the past 24 months. > 1) Identification of legitimate use > > While I agree that we need to keep track on who has rights on > what - it is one of the key points of 2007-08 - doing it > globally would mean abandoning all RIR databases for a global > registry. Huh? I can't see where you get this idea. This ETNO point is in full support of the existing RIR system, where every IP address range is under the authority of one of the RIRs, and where the identity of the "legitimate user" can be authoritatively discovered in the RIR's database (or whois directory). In this point ETNO is supporting the existing transfer framework in which all IP address transfers must go through one of the 5 RIRs. Under 2007-08 it is possible that some LIRs will transfer addresses which an RIR will not register in the database. You then have two parties (transferor and transferee) claiming that a transfer has taken place, and one party (RIPE, etc.) claiming that it has not. Instead of a clear statement of the legitimate user, you need to go to some kind of adjudication panel to sort the mess out. > 2) Transparency > I fully agree on transparency. What I fail to see is what is > meant with 'public way' and why 2007-08 would fall short of > that mark. Because under 2007-08 two LIRs can secretly negotiate and execute a transfer or addresses under some secret set of terms which may or may not include payments of cash. RIPE only gets involved at the end of the process to update the database, and the terms of the exchange are never disclosed. > When > IPv4 space moves hands because of a merger or acquisition > this doesn't happen either. That's all current bottom-up policy. During M&A activity, it is public who receives the functioning network assets, and that is the criteria (technical justfication) for allocating IP addresses to the new network owner. The IP addressing aspects are still open and public. > 3) Fair and neutral reuse > ? > All recovered address space should be recycled in a globally > synchronized fashion. RIRs should work harder recovering IPv4 space. > ? > I think that this is a good idea, but let's not overestimate > what IANA and the RIRs are able to recover. Under 2007-08, you are right that the RIRs will not recover much. But if we leave the transfer framework as it currently is, then most IPv4 addresses that become surplus due to IPv6 deployment, will go back to the RIRs. Here ETNO is supporting the current framework because it provides fair and neutral terms for reuse of addresses. To get addresses, everyone must provide a technical justification. When that justification goes away, everyone must return the addresses to RIPE unless there is some imminent new technical justification in their own organization, for instance shutting down dialup services in a company who is still growing VPN or Internet access or broadband business. Reuse, happens naturally and no new policies are needed. It would be nice for RIPE to remind LIRs about returning IP addresses and set some guidelines such as don't bother until you have more than a /24, if you expect an adjacent block to become free within 6 months then wait before returning, etc. That could be done without making fundamental changes to the transfer framework. > I find it curious that ETNO puts significant effort into > writing position papers such as this one and not join us in > that bottom-up process, but that's a different matter. ETNO is just a bunch of people, much like RIPE. Different people have different working styles and that's OK. Note that more people from ETNO companies are starting to get involved in RIPE as they learn and understand RIPE's working practices. May I suggest that RIPE could help by offering to present a session at ETNO's next annual conference in November. > 5) No connection between IPv4 and IPv6 > ? > Policies we make for the 'afterlife' of IPv4 should not > affect any policy with regard to IPv6. > ? > Yes. 2007-08 is in compliance with that. Unfortunately, 2007-08 will lead many to think that selling address blocks is OK in the RIPE region. As a result, this does affect IPv6 since if an IPv4 address block is a saleable asset then IPv6 addresses are also saleable assets. > In describing transfers, ETNO argues that transfers are the > first step towards a market. That is false. It is the first > step towards a market under the control of the RIRs and the > current bottom-up policy process we all know and love. A > market will evolve whether we accommodate it or not. Focussing just on the last sentence it is clear that you believe a market will evolve, and that 2007-08 "accomodates" a market. That is precisely where ETNO disagrees. ETNO believes that a market can be prevented from evolving if RIPE takes the correct actions, and that "accomodating" a market is a wrong action for RIPE to take. Remember that collectively, ETNO members have a huge number of IPv4 addresses allocated. If they do not participate in any attempts at forming a market, then the market will be stunted, and lack liquidity. In addition, when the shift to IPv6 begins in earnest, because vendors have fixed the problems which are still blocking it, ETNO member companies will be deploying IPV6 rather quickly. This will result in a significant percentage of their IPv4 addresses returning to RIPE for reallocation. That event will kill any existing market for IPv4 addresses. So the best possible scenario for an IPv4 market will be a trickle of transactions put on for show then a runout of IANA's free pool followed by a sharp increase in small block transactions by some players trying out the market. At this point prices will sharply increase causing buyers to back out of the market unless they are in desperate straits. Then IPv6 deployers will begin giving some addresses back to RIPE at which point the market collapses. Frankly, it would be better for this to play itself out in a black market scenario without RIPE involvement. > Inaction is not a sign of good stewardship. So we need to be > seen doing something, preferably something that will make a > difference. You are right. It is time for RIPE to take more action to help LIRs audit their supply of addresses and to set some reasonable guidelines for returning unused IPv4 addresses. Since addresses are only usable in aggregate, and since LIRs could potentially increase those aggregate block sizes with sensible internal processes, it is time for RIPE to work on a best practices document for IPv4 addressing. > I would urge ETNO to become part of this discussion and work > with the community in our prized bottom-up policy process, > rather than setting limits to what can and can not be > discussed an not coming up with solutions themselves. Note that Mark McFadden, who presented an ETNO document a couple of RIPE meetings ago, and myself, both work for an ETNO member. I agree that it would be nicer to see more ETNO members join in the discussion, but please recognize that ETNO deals with far more issues and policy organizations than just RIPE. I suspect that many ETNO members see RIPE as a functioning organization that is mostly doing good work for the network, and therefore RIPE doesn't need as much attention as some other organizations that make laws and regulations (which have almost the same force as a law). --Michael Dillon From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Wed Jun 4 13:36:33 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:36:33 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08: response to ETNO position In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Michael, Just browsing through your response one item immediately sticks out: is there a commitment from ETNO in here that their members would immediately return unused IPv4 space ? That'd be great - if IPv6 were to be deployed fully by all ETNO members in the next 2 years, which you think is easily achievable, we'd never run out of space. I'm asking because it is exactly the opposite of what representatives of a lot of ETNO members have been telling me in private. Kind regards, Remco van Mook (again no hats) > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of > michael.dillon at bt.com > Sent: woensdag 4 juni 2008 12:59 > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08: response to ETNO position > > > Let me first rephrase what 2007-08 is about, before > > responding to ETNO's position. 2007-08 is about setting up a > > framework for (IPv4) resource transfers between LIRs. Nothing > > more, nothing less. No IPv6, no ASNs. No PI, no ERX. It is a > > framework in the sense that, in my opinion, it encompasses > > the absolute minimum set of policy changes required for this > > to happen without immediately shooting ourselves in the foot. > > It is a starting point, not an end point for transfer policies. > > However, we already have a framework for IP address transfers between > LIRs which works substantially the same in all RIR regions. If it > involves a change in corporate ownership, you simply need to show > proof of the change and that the network is still operating under > the new entity. The RIR then updates all records showing the new > ownership. Or you give the address block back to the RIR because > you no longer need it, and some other LIR will get those addresses > at some point in the future. > > This framework works. There is no reason to believe that it would > cease working as IPv6 deployment picks up. Most network operators > are undertaking some form of audit of their internal use of > IP addresses > in preparation for the shortage, which means that as IPv6 > picks up, they > should know when they have surplus IPv4 addresses and can return them > to RIPE or whatever RIR they came from. If it is not broken, then > why would we want to change this framework? > > You claim that this will speed up the process of transfers > but I cannot > see how adding a new set of transfer rules will speed up anything. > Even though you claim that this is an LIR-to-LIR transfer without > RIPE involvement, this is not true since there are various rules > which RIPE must administer and RIPE can disallow a transfer if, > for instance, an LIR has received a re-allocation within the > past 24 months. > > > 1) Identification of legitimate use > > > > While I agree that we need to keep track on who has rights on > > what - it is one of the key points of 2007-08 - doing it > > globally would mean abandoning all RIR databases for a global > > registry. > > Huh? I can't see where you get this idea. This ETNO point is in > full support of the existing RIR system, where every IP address > range is under the authority of one of the RIRs, and where the > identity of the "legitimate user" can be authoritatively discovered > in the RIR's database (or whois directory). > > In this point ETNO is supporting the existing transfer framework > in which all IP address transfers must go through one of the > 5 RIRs. Under 2007-08 it is possible that some LIRs will transfer > addresses which an RIR will not register in the database. You then > have two parties (transferor and transferee) claiming that a transfer > has taken place, and one party (RIPE, etc.) claiming that it has not. > Instead of a clear statement of the legitimate user, you need to > go to some kind of adjudication panel to sort the mess out. > > > 2) Transparency > > > I fully agree on transparency. What I fail to see is what is > > meant with 'public way' and why 2007-08 would fall short of > > that mark. > > Because under 2007-08 two LIRs can secretly negotiate and execute > a transfer or addresses under some secret set of terms which may > or may not include payments of cash. RIPE only gets involved at > the end of the process to update the database, and the terms of > the exchange are never disclosed. > > > When > > IPv4 space moves hands because of a merger or acquisition > > this doesn't happen either. That's all current bottom-up policy. > > During M&A activity, it is public who receives the functioning network > assets, and that is the criteria (technical justfication) for > allocating > IP addresses to the new network owner. The IP addressing aspects are > still open and public. > > > 3) Fair and neutral reuse > > ? > > All recovered address space should be recycled in a globally > > synchronized fashion. RIRs should work harder recovering IPv4 space. > > ? > > I think that this is a good idea, but let's not overestimate > > what IANA and the RIRs are able to recover. > > Under 2007-08, you are right that the RIRs will not recover much. > But if we leave the transfer framework as it currently is, then > most IPv4 addresses that become surplus due to IPv6 deployment, > will go back to the RIRs. Here ETNO is supporting the current > framework because it provides fair and neutral terms for reuse > of addresses. > > To get addresses, everyone must provide a technical justification. > When that justification goes away, everyone must return the > addresses to RIPE unless there is some imminent new technical > justification in their own organization, for instance shutting > down dialup services in a company who is still growing VPN or > Internet access or broadband business. Reuse, happens naturally > and no new policies are needed. > > It would be nice for RIPE to remind LIRs about returning IP addresses > and set some guidelines such as don't bother until you have more > than a /24, if you expect an adjacent block to become free within > 6 months then wait before returning, etc. That could be done without > making fundamental changes to the transfer framework. > > > I find it curious that ETNO puts significant effort into > > writing position papers such as this one and not join us in > > that bottom-up process, but that's a different matter. > > ETNO is just a bunch of people, much like RIPE. Different people > have different working styles and that's OK. Note that more people > from ETNO companies are starting to get involved in RIPE as they > learn and understand RIPE's working practices. May I suggest that > RIPE could help by offering to present a session at ETNO's next > annual conference in November. > > > 5) No connection between IPv4 and IPv6 > > ? > > Policies we make for the 'afterlife' of IPv4 should not > > affect any policy with regard to IPv6. > > ? > > Yes. 2007-08 is in compliance with that. > > Unfortunately, 2007-08 will lead many to think that selling > address blocks is OK in the RIPE region. As a result, this does > affect IPv6 since if an IPv4 address block is a saleable asset > then IPv6 addresses are also saleable assets. > > > In describing transfers, ETNO argues that transfers are the > > first step towards a market. That is false. It is the first > > step towards a market under the control of the RIRs and the > > current bottom-up policy process we all know and love. A > > market will evolve whether we accommodate it or not. > > Focussing just on the last sentence it is clear that you > believe a market will evolve, and that 2007-08 "accomodates" > a market. That is precisely where ETNO disagrees. ETNO believes > that a market can be prevented from evolving if RIPE takes the > correct actions, and that "accomodating" a market is a wrong > action for RIPE to take. > > Remember that collectively, ETNO members have a huge number of > IPv4 addresses allocated. If they do not participate in any > attempts at forming a market, then the market will be stunted, > and lack liquidity. In addition, when the shift to IPv6 begins > in earnest, because vendors have fixed the problems which are > still blocking it, ETNO member companies will be deploying > IPV6 rather quickly. This will result in a significant percentage > of their IPv4 addresses returning to RIPE for reallocation. > That event will kill any existing market for IPv4 addresses. > > So the best possible scenario for an IPv4 market will be a trickle > of transactions put on for show then a runout of IANA's free > pool followed > by a sharp increase in small block transactions by some players trying > out the market. At this point prices will sharply increase causing > buyers to back out of the market unless they are in desperate straits. > Then IPv6 deployers will begin giving some addresses back to RIPE > at which point the market collapses. > > Frankly, it would be better for this to play itself out in a > black market scenario without RIPE involvement. > > > Inaction is not a sign of good stewardship. So we need to be > > seen doing something, preferably something that will make a > > difference. > > You are right. It is time for RIPE to take more action to help > LIRs audit their supply of addresses and to set some reasonable > guidelines for returning unused IPv4 addresses. Since addresses > are only usable in aggregate, and since LIRs could potentially > increase those aggregate block sizes with sensible internal processes, > it is time for RIPE to work on a best practices document for > IPv4 addressing. > > > I would urge ETNO to become part of this discussion and work > > with the community in our prized bottom-up policy process, > > rather than setting limits to what can and can not be > > discussed an not coming up with solutions themselves. > > Note that Mark McFadden, who presented an ETNO document a couple > of RIPE meetings ago, and myself, both work for an ETNO member. > I agree that it would be nicer to see more ETNO members join in > the discussion, but please recognize that ETNO deals with far more > issues and policy organizations than just RIPE. I suspect that many > ETNO members see RIPE as a functioning organization that is mostly > doing good work for the network, and therefore RIPE doesn't need as > much attention as some other organizations that make laws and > regulations (which have almost the same force as a law). > > --Michael Dillon > > > > > 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 Wed Jun 4 14:07:38 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:07:38 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08: response to ETNO position In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Just browsing through your response one item immediately > sticks out: is there a commitment from ETNO in here that > their members would immediately return unused IPv4 space ? ETNO can't make that kind of commitment. If RIPE wanted to ask its LIRs to make such a commitment, then that would be interesting. However, my comment is an attempt to clarify that the current framework for IP address block transfers does include returning blocks to RIPE for reallocation. > That'd be great - if IPv6 were to be deployed fully by all > ETNO members in the next 2 years, which you think is easily > achievable, we'd never run out of space. I never said anything about full deployment of IPv6. All we need in order for IPv4 address blocks to be returned is for IPv6 deployment to be slightly more than normal network growth. If you assume that IPv4 deployment has been going on for about 10 years, then normal growth would not be more than one tenth of full deployment. Also note that even less IPv6 deployment than that, will be enough to reduce the consumption of IPv4 address blocks and thus, extend the lifetime of IPv4 well beyone 2 years. In fact, we may never run out of IPv4 addresses if IPv6 deployment happens fast enough. Since new product development status is generally considered highly confidential, we really don't know how much any companies have done to prepare for this so we really cannot reasonably estimate how long it will take. I'm not sure if anyone has paid the research companies like Gartner, Forrester, Ovum, etc to go around and check on the status of IPv6. It would be interesting to know if anyone has any fact-based estimates of how long it would take the IP network industry to deploy enough IPv6 service to cut their IPv4 consumption in half, and therefore push the end-date for IPv4 out in the future, 5 to 6 years from now. > I'm asking because it is exactly the opposite of what > representatives of a lot of ETNO members have been telling me > in private. I'm not sure that most of the ETNO representatives would be in a position to know this within their companies. And if they did know, I expect most of them would not be allowed to say anything definite. And of course, if you ask the wrong questions, then any answers are worthless. I don't think that any major ISP in any country would be able (technically and commercially) to deploy IPv6 FULLY before 5 years from now. That's based on the history of IPv4 deployment and how long it took for various networking issues to be solved to the point where most people receive a fast and reliable Internet access service. Or IP-VPN service. Or private IP internetwork service. But we don't need full deployment in order to address the problem of IPv4 exhaustion. We just need enough deployment to slow down IPv4 consumption, and we need that deployment to be continuous with a slightly increasing rate so that it becomes business-as-usual for most IP network operators. There will be a period where vendors of routers, firewalls, access gateways, and software work through a long list of minor (and occasionally major issues) which block deployment in one way or another. That process is what will take about 5 years to get through at which point some network operators (not all of them) will be able to fully deply IPv6 to all of their PoPs and across all of their acess technologies. It doesn't help anything when people demand that network operators accomplish the impossible. This is a shared journey that requires cooperative work from a lot of organizations in order to make IPv6 fully usable. There is no doubt that we will all take that journey, but not everybody travels at the same speed. --Michael Dillon P.S. here's a quote from a message that I posted to ARIN's policy mailing list about a year ago. I expect that we will see 3-4 years of IPv6 deployment, followed by 10 years or so in which IPv4 usage steadily reduces and IPv6 steadily rises. Then in about 14-15 years we will begin a period of consolidation in which there is an effort to retire IPv4 on the public Internet and in corporate/enterprise networks. Give this another 10 years, which means that in about 25 years, IPv4 will be considered end-of-life. At that point, general purpose networking gear will cease to support IPv4, however it is possible that new IPv4 devices will continue to be built for special uses. Even today, it is not hard for an undergraduate student to build their own IPv4 router using off-the-shelf parts and open-source software. Even ASICs are available off-the-shelf in the form of FPGAs and one can expect that in 25 years this type of thing becomes even easier and cheaper. So IPv4 may linger on for a few generations hidden inside MP3 player headsets and heel computers (inside your running shoes) and concert posters. From marcoh at marcoh.net Wed Jun 4 15:37:57 2008 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:37:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08: response to ETNO position In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9C796826-EB99-40E1-9001-B93E9FAC5DAD@marcoh.net> On 4 jun 2008, at 12:59, wrote: >> Let me first rephrase what 2007-08 is about, before >> responding to ETNO's position. 2007-08 is about setting up a >> framework for (IPv4) resource transfers between LIRs. Nothing >> more, nothing less. No IPv6, no ASNs. No PI, no ERX. It is a >> framework in the sense that, in my opinion, it encompasses >> the absolute minimum set of policy changes required for this >> to happen without immediately shooting ourselves in the foot. >> It is a starting point, not an end point for transfer policies. > > However, we already have a framework for IP address transfers between > LIRs which works substantially the same in all RIR regions. If it > involves a change in corporate ownership, you simply need to show > proof of the change and that the network is still operating under > the new entity. The RIR then updates all records showing the new > ownership. Or you give the address block back to the RIR because > you no longer need it, and some other LIR will get those addresses > at some point in the future. This is hardly the same, your talking about mergers in which one of the LIR's will be closed at the end of the procedure. Further this procedure (ripe-301) doesn't talk about reclaiming address, to quote the docuent: "Transferred allocations containing a large amount of unassigned address space may be set aside and kept by the RIPE NCC until the other allocations held by the LIR are considered fully used (about 80%). Once the LIR has reached full utilisation in its other allocations, the reserved allocations will be made available to the LIR." Which, if you're building reserves for after 2012 is acceptable and might even help getting away from the tax collectors, should there ever be such time (which I hope will never happen) where IPv4 addresses are considered a taxable asset. > This framework works. There is no reason to believe that it would > cease working as IPv6 deployment picks up. Most network operators > are undertaking some form of audit of their internal use of IP > addresses > in preparation for the shortage, which means that as IPv6 picks up, > they > should know when they have surplus IPv4 addresses and can return them > to RIPE or whatever RIR they came from. If it is not broken, then > why would we want to change this framework? Wether we like it or not, there will eventually be some form of market. It might even be your scenario where people simply buy the whole company, including the registry, to get their hands on unused resources or where the value of the company will be depending on the number of unused and available resources. Should this situation become reality, I don't see much people giving back stuff which they can sell for cold hard cash. > You claim that this will speed up the process of transfers but I > cannot > see how adding a new set of transfer rules will speed up anything. > Even though you claim that this is an LIR-to-LIR transfer without > RIPE involvement, this is not true since there are various rules > which RIPE must administer and RIPE can disallow a transfer if, > for instance, an LIR has received a re-allocation within the > past 24 months. >> Which will protectr the market, should there be any, from speculation and maybe even from emerging at all. >> 2) Transparency > >> I fully agree on transparency. What I fail to see is what is >> meant with 'public way' and why 2007-08 would fall short of >> that mark. > > Because under 2007-08 two LIRs can secretly negotiate and execute > a transfer or addresses under some secret set of terms which may > or may not include payments of cash. RIPE only gets involved at > the end of the process to update the database, and the terms of > the exchange are never disclosed. And where exactly does this differ from ripe-301 ? >> When >> IPv4 space moves hands because of a merger or acquisition >> this doesn't happen either. That's all current bottom-up policy. > > During M&A activity, it is public who receives the functioning network > assets, and that is the criteria (technical justfication) for > allocating > IP addresses to the new network owner. The IP addressing aspects are > still open and public. I find this a pretty big claim, M&A procedures aren't that public, if your lucky both parties involved have to comply to stock market regulations, but still it usually is only announced when the deal is already made. I also can't see, not being involved directly, which of those transferred resources are being put aside by the NCC, the only thing I can make up from public records is there has been some form of merger and resources are now assigned to a new LIR and maybe I can find a newspaper article on what happened to the company. I also can at least give you one example where addresses have been transferred between two LIR's in the aftermath of a bankrupcy, where 301 wasn't applied and both the losing as the recieving registry kept operating indepently. >> 3) Fair and neutral reuse >> >> All recovered address space should be recycled in a globally >> synchronized fashion. RIRs should work harder recovering IPv4 space. >> >> I think that this is a good idea, but let's not overestimate >> what IANA and the RIRs are able to recover. > > Under 2007-08, you are right that the RIRs will not recover much. > But if we leave the transfer framework as it currently is, then > most IPv4 addresses that become surplus due to IPv6 deployment, > will go back to the RIRs. Here ETNO is supporting the current > framework because it provides fair and neutral terms for reuse > of addresses. > > To get addresses, everyone must provide a technical justification. > When that justification goes away, everyone must return the > addresses to RIPE unless there is some imminent new technical > justification in their own organization, for instance shutting > down dialup services in a company who is still growing VPN or > Internet access or broadband business. Reuse, happens naturally > and no new policies are needed. > > It would be nice for RIPE to remind LIRs about returning IP addresses > and set some guidelines such as don't bother until you have more > than a /24, if you expect an adjacent block to become free within > 6 months then wait before returning, etc. That could be done without > making fundamental changes to the transfer framework. I think this is a prime example on where theory and everyday life are completely different, there isn't much space returned and knowing that once you return resources it will only get harder to ever get them back will only hold people back from returning address space. >> 5) No connection between IPv4 and IPv6 >> >> Policies we make for the 'afterlife' of IPv4 should not >> affect any policy with regard to IPv6. >> >> Yes. 2007-08 is in compliance with that. > > Unfortunately, 2007-08 will lead many to think that selling > address blocks is OK in the RIPE region. As a result, this does > affect IPv6 since if an IPv4 address block is a saleable asset > then IPv6 addresses are also saleable assets. Let's, for the sake of the argument, assume IPv6 is indeed infinite (ignoring the 'classfull' behaviour in current v6 policies), why would I ever want to buy IPv6 addresses as I can get brandnew ones for almost free at the RIR around the corner ? And if there is no reason to buy, there won't be a reason to sell either. >> In describing transfers, ETNO argues that transfers are the >> first step towards a market. That is false. It is the first >> step towards a market under the control of the RIRs and the >> current bottom-up policy process we all know and love. A >> market will evolve whether we accommodate it or not. > > Focussing just on the last sentence it is clear that you > believe a market will evolve, and that 2007-08 "accomodates" > a market. That is precisely where ETNO disagrees. ETNO believes > th000at a market can be prevented from evolving if RIPE takes the > correct actions, and that "accomodating" a market is a wrong > action for RIPE to take. > > Remember that collectively, ETNO members have a huge number of > IPv4 addresses allocated. If they do not participate in any > attempts at forming a market, then the market will be stunted, > and lack liquidity. In addition, when the shift to IPv6 begins > in earnest, because vendors have fixed the problems which are > still blocking it, ETNO member companies will be deploying > IPV6 rather quickly. This will result in a significant percentage > of their IPv4 addresses returning to RIPE for reallocation. > That event will kill any existing market for IPv4 addresses. > > So the best possible scenario for an IPv4 market will be a trickle > of transactions put on for show then a runout of IANA's free pool > followed > by a sharp increase in small block transactions by some players trying > out the market. At this point prices will sharply increase causing > buyers to back out of the market unless they are in desperate straits. > Then IPv6 deployers will begin giving some addresses back to RIPE > at which point the market collapses. > > Frankly, it would be better for this to play itself out in a > black market scenario without RIPE involvement. >> And in the mean time also the ETNO members get spammed/scanned/hacked from one of those black market address blocks. Who do you turn to ? The original LIR ? What if it's a part of a pre-RIR block ? >> Inaction is not a sign of good stewardship. So we need to be >> seen doing something, preferably something that will make a >> difference. > > You are right. It is time for RIPE to take more action to help > LIRs audit their supply of addresses and to set some reasonable > guidelines for returning unused IPv4 addresses. Since addresses > are only usable in aggregate, and since LIRs could potentially > increase those aggregate block sizes with sensible internal processes, > it is time for RIPE to work on a best practices document for > IPv4 addressing. It's probably unnecessary to state I'm also against the active development of a market, I do however support 2007-08 because reality tells me there already is a market, people are requesting PI spae for a living. I would rather see the RIR's as a title agent so that market is as transparent as it can be and we can even put a dampening effect on it, by for instance prohibiting the re-transfer of a block wihtin 24 months. Finally on your comment on auditing address space needs, doing a little digging on the database for one of the etno members, I would love to see that /11 return to the unallocated pool. Groet, MarcoH (no hats, just hair) From filiz at ripe.net Wed Jun 11 10:31:33 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:31:33 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) Message-ID: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2007-08 has been extended until 9 July 2008. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Wed Jun 11 12:12:36 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:12:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: Dear all, Following up on Filiz' announcement, I would like to ask people supporting 2007-08 to let their voices be heard on this mailing list; we can only move it forward if the wg chairs see enough support for it (and so far there has been a lot of informal support). Thank you, Remco van Mook -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Filiz Yilmaz Sent: woensdag 11 juni 2008 10:32 To: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2007-08 has been extended until 9 July 2008. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer 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 niallm-subs at avernus.net Wed Jun 11 12:40:44 2008 From: niallm-subs at avernus.net (Niall Murphy) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:40:44 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) Message-ID: <59849c580806110340t4b14802r3cafd64207cfdb3b@mail.gmail.com> I support this proposal. Niall > Dear all, > > Following up on Filiz' announcement, I would like to ask people > supporting 2007-08 to let their voices be heard on this mailing list; we > can only move it forward if the wg chairs see enough support for it (and > so far there has been a lot of informal support). > > Thank you, > > Remco van Mook > > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Filiz Yilmaz > Sent: woensdag 11 juni 2008 10:32 > To: policy-announce at ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July > 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) > > PDP Number: 2007-08 > Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources > > Dear Colleagues, > > The Review Period for the proposal 2007-08 has been extended until 9 > July 2008. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your > comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC > Policy Development Officer > > > > > 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 marcoh at marcoh.net Wed Jun 11 12:46:14 2008 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:46:14 +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: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <99E11724-7C16-45A6-9088-8A6D458CAA12@marcoh.net> I agree On 11 jun 2008, at 12:12, Remco van Mook wrote: > Dear all, > > Following up on Filiz' announcement, I would like to ask people > supporting 2007-08 to let their voices be heard on this mailing > list; we > can only move it forward if the wg chairs see enough support for it > (and > so far there has been a lot of informal support). > > Thank you, > > Remco van Mook > > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Filiz Yilmaz > Sent: woensdag 11 juni 2008 10:32 > To: policy-announce at ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 > July > 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) > > PDP Number: 2007-08 > Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources > > Dear Colleagues, > > The Review Period for the proposal 2007-08 has been extended until 9 > July 2008. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your > comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC > Policy Development Officer > > > > > 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 > Groet, MarcoH From marcoh at marcoh.net Wed Jun 11 13:07:09 2008 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:07:09 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20080611110345.GA60312@Space.Net> References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <99E11724-7C16-45A6-9088-8A6D458CAA12@marcoh.net> <20080611110345.GA60312@Space.Net> Message-ID: <8AB7B31C-611B-4E4B-8DCA-5E9DFC6AD683@marcoh.net> On 11 jun 2008, at 13:03, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:46:14PM +0200, Marco Hogewoning wrote: >> I agree > > Please be specific: do you agree to the proposal, or to the request > that > people voice their support? > > (Off-List, but this is important when the question "who was in > favour of > it, and who opposed it" is going to be asked) > ed) Sorry for the confusion. I support this proposal. Groet, MarcoH From shane at time-travellers.org Wed Jun 11 13:11:51 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:11:51 +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: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20080611111151.GA10730@borg.c-l-i.net> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:12:36PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote: > > Following up on Filiz' announcement, I would like to ask people > supporting 2007-08 to let their voices be heard on this mailing > list; we can only move it forward if the wg chairs see enough > support for it (and so far there has been a lot of informal > support). I support the proposal. -- Shane From randy at psg.com Wed Jun 11 13:28:59 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:28:59 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <484FB6FB.3000706@psg.com> if i could wade through all the bureaucratic wrappings and to understand what exactly is being proposed, there is a fair chance that i would like it. as it stands, it makes geoff look up front and terse. could someone fit it in a one screen email? randy From jeroen at unfix.org Wed Jun 11 13:36:34 2008 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:36:34 +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: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <484FB8C2.5000802@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Remco van Mook wrote: > Dear all, > > Following up on Filiz' announcement, I would like to ask people > supporting 2007-08 to let their voices be heard on this mailing list; we > can only move it forward if the wg chairs see enough support for it (and > so far there has been a lot of informal support). Even though this will give the NCC a bit more work to do, I do support this proposal. One of the main reasons being that the allocations will remain to be properly registered and are thus accountable. Thus: +1 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 Joao_Damas at isc.org Wed Jun 11 13:53:27 2008 From: Joao_Damas at isc.org (Joao Damas) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:53:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <484FB6FB.3000706@psg.com> References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <484FB6FB.3000706@psg.com> Message-ID: click on the link in Filiz email. It takes you to a page, where after a table with miscellaneous bureaucratic info you come across a section by the name of "Summary of proposal", taking much, much less than a screenful. The details, just below the summary, take about a screenful. Joao On 11 Jun 2008, at 13:28, Randy Bush wrote: > if i could wade through all the bureaucratic wrappings and to > understand what exactly is being proposed, there is a fair chance > that i > would like it. as it stands, it makes geoff look up front and terse. > could someone fit it in a one screen email? > > randy From randy at psg.com Wed Jun 11 14:01:24 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:01:24 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <484FB6FB.3000706@psg.com> Message-ID: <484FBE94.3080707@psg.com> Joao Damas wrote: > click on the link in Filiz email. It takes you to a page, where after > a table with miscellaneous bureaucratic info you come across a > section by the name of "Summary of proposal", taking much, much less > than a screenful. The details, just below the summary, take about a > screenful. thanks. that was what i meant by > Summary of Proposal: > > This proposal outlines a framework to migrate previously allocated > IPv4 resources from one Local Internet Registry (LIR) to another LIR > within the RIPE NCC Service Region. as it says nothing about what is actually being proposed. this is followed by > Draft Policy Text > > New Text > > After receiving feedback on the first version of the proposal during > the initial discussion phase, the policy text is edited and the > changes that are proposed can be seen on the drafted policy document. > (see "Draft RIPE Document" above). which also says nothing. this is followed by > Rationale: which gives the pros and cons of the invisible proposal. perhaps you did not actually follow the url before recommending it? or you are sufficiently inured to eurocrazy that this actually looks like a proposal to you. randy From Joao_Damas at isc.org Wed Jun 11 14:05:32 2008 From: Joao_Damas at isc.org (Joao Damas) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:05:32 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <484FBE94.3080707@psg.com> References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <484FB6FB.3000706@psg.com> <484FBE94.3080707@psg.com> Message-ID: if you want the full unadulterated text with all the details, click on the link that reads "Draft RIPE Document". It is longer than a screenful, but it is the text and nothing but the text Joao PS: I would be eurocrazy the day I am happy with the EU ruling on what you can take as hand luggage on airplanes. Try to find that one, if you can. On 11 Jun 2008, at 14:01, Randy Bush wrote: > Joao Damas wrote: >> click on the link in Filiz email. It takes you to a page, where after >> a table with miscellaneous bureaucratic info you come across a >> section by the name of "Summary of proposal", taking much, much less >> than a screenful. The details, just below the summary, take about a >> screenful. > > thanks. that was what i meant by > >> Summary of Proposal: >> >> This proposal outlines a framework to migrate previously allocated >> IPv4 resources from one Local Internet Registry (LIR) to another LIR >> within the RIPE NCC Service Region. > > as it says nothing about what is actually being proposed. this is > followed by > >> Draft Policy Text >> >> New Text >> >> After receiving feedback on the first version of the proposal during >> the initial discussion phase, the policy text is edited and the >> changes that are proposed can be seen on the drafted policy document. >> (see "Draft RIPE Document" above). > > which also says nothing. this is followed by > >> Rationale: > > which gives the pros and cons of the invisible proposal. > > perhaps you did not actually follow the url before recommending it? > or > you are sufficiently inured to eurocrazy that this actually looks > like a > proposal to you. > > randy From randy at psg.com Wed Jun 11 14:10:33 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:10:33 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <484FB6FB.3000706@psg.com> <484FBE94.3080707@psg.com> Message-ID: <484FC0B9.9080101@psg.com> Joao Damas wrote: > if you want the full unadulterated text with all the details, click on > the link that reads "Draft RIPE Document". It is longer than a > screenful, but it is the text and nothing but the text which is a massive page which is a diff of a full policy manual. if you think this is a simple statement of the policy proposal, then you are indeed inured to eurocrazy. thank you for the lesson in klensin and huston appreciation. i'll go away now. randy From heldal at eml.cc Wed Jun 11 14:15:18 2008 From: heldal at eml.cc (Per Heldal) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:15:18 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <1213186518.10412.46.camel@obelix.sandbu> On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 10:31 +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2007-08 > Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources > > Dear Colleagues, > > The Review Period for the proposal 2007-08 has been extended until 9 July 2008. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your > comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net. > The draft ?5.5 says: "Demonstration of need for the address space by the receiving LIR to the RIPE NCC is not required during transfers." I belive terms should be the same for any allocation. I.e we may discuss and revise the general terms that must be met to qualify for an allocation, but should not make such an exception for transfers. Then there are more general concerns; It has and will be discussed whether the suggested policy serves to enable a market or not. It can also be considered an attempt to introduce some form of market regulation. Any way, this is a fundamental change of direction for the RIR, and does imho deserve some serious thoughts and analysis of potential implications: - Legal - Financial (liability for harm to business) - How to resolve desputes. - What mechanisms are necessary for efficient regulation. Personally I'd prefer the present policies to continue, where a block must be returned to RIPE before the NCC re-allocates according to normal rules. That does not encourage the creation of a market, but has anyone yet been able to precent viable plans for a scheme able to reclaim enough addresses to support current network growth for any significant time past depletion of the free pool? //per From randy at psg.com Wed Jun 11 14:23:19 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:23:19 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <484FB6FB.3000706@psg.com> <484FBE94.3080707@psg.com> Message-ID: <484FC3B7.8070702@psg.com> a kind soul took pity on me and sent the following, on which i have a comment or two. thank you thank you thank you. > Any LIR is allowed to re-allocate complete or partial blocks of IPv4 > address space that were previously allocated to them by either the > RIPE NCC or the IANA. Such address space must not contain any block > that is assigned to an End User. so, i can not sell off a portion of my business that has customers in it? > Address space may only be re-allocated to another LIR that is also a > member of the RIPE NCC. note that geoff has just said he would be adding a clause in his apnic proposal that allows inter-region transfer if o the seller must be abiding by all the selling rules of their ir o the buyer must be abiding by all the buying rules of their ir > The block that is to be re-allocated must not > be smaller than the minimum allocation block size at the time of > re-allocation. Demonstration of need for the address space by the > receiving LIR to the RIPE NCC is not required during transfers. > > Re-allocation must be reflected in the RIPE Database. This > re-allocation may be on either a permanent or non-permanent basis. > > LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR cannot re-allocate > complete or partial blocks of the same address space to another LIR > within 24 months of receiving the re-allocation. if i buy a portion of someone's business (see above comment), then i can not resell it for 24 months without forcing the customers to renumber? > The re-allocation will be notified to the RIPE NCC, who will record > the change of allocation. Please note that the LIR always remains > responsible for the entire allocation it receives from the RIPE NCC > until the re-allocation is transferred to another LIR or returned. > The LIR must ensure that all policies are applied. > > Re-allocated blocks will be signed to establish the current > allocation owner. > > Re-allocated blocks are no different from the allocations made > directly by the RIPE NCC and so they must be used by the receiving > LIR according to the policies described in this document. randy From niallm at avernus.net Wed Jun 11 12:40:35 2008 From: niallm at avernus.net (Niall Richard Murphy) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:40:35 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <484FABA3.5010906@avernus.net> I support this proposal. Niall > Dear all, > > Following up on Filiz' announcement, I would like to ask people > supporting 2007-08 to let their voices be heard on this mailing list; we > can only move it forward if the wg chairs see enough support for it (and > so far there has been a lot of informal support). > > Thank you, > > Remco van Mook > > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Filiz Yilmaz > Sent: woensdag 11 juni 2008 10:32 > To: policy-announce at ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July > 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) > > PDP Number: 2007-08 > Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources > > Dear Colleagues, > > The Review Period for the proposal 2007-08 has been extended until 9 > July 2008. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your > comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC > Policy Development Officer > > > > > 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 md at Linux.IT Wed Jun 11 17:23:59 2008 From: md at Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:23:59 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <484FC3B7.8070702@psg.com> References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <484FB6FB.3000706@psg.com> <484FBE94.3080707@psg.com> <484FC3B7.8070702@psg.com> Message-ID: <20080611152359.GA11786@bongo.bofh.it> On Jun 11, Randy Bush wrote: > > Any LIR is allowed to re-allocate complete or partial blocks of IPv4 > > address space that were previously allocated to them by either the > > RIPE NCC or the IANA. Such address space must not contain any block > > that is assigned to an End User. > so, i can not sell off a portion of my business that has customers in it? Not if you need to break up a PA allocation to do it. But you already cannot do this with the current rules. -- ciao, Marco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From nick at inex.ie Wed Jun 11 17:28:18 2008 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:28:18 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <484FEF12.6000300@inex.ie> > Following up on Filiz' announcement, I would like to ask people > supporting 2007-08 to let their voices be heard on this mailing list; we > can only move it forward if the wg chairs see enough support for it (and > so far there has been a lot of informal support). I support this proposal. Nick > Thank you, > > Remco van Mook > > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Filiz Yilmaz > Sent: woensdag 11 juni 2008 10:32 > To: policy-announce at ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July > 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) > > PDP Number: 2007-08 > Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources > > Dear Colleagues, > > The Review Period for the proposal 2007-08 has been extended until 9 > July 2008. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your > comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC > Policy Development Officer > > > > > 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 > > -- 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 randy at psg.com Wed Jun 11 20:16:00 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:16:00 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20080611152359.GA11786@bongo.bofh.it> References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <484FB6FB.3000706@psg.com> <484FBE94.3080707@psg.com> <484FC3B7.8070702@psg.com> <20080611152359.GA11786@bongo.bofh.it> Message-ID: <48501660.2060701@psg.com> >>> Any LIR is allowed to re-allocate complete or partial blocks of IPv4 >>> address space that were previously allocated to them by either the >>> RIPE NCC or the IANA. Such address space must not contain any block >>> that is assigned to an End User. >> so, i can not sell off a portion of my business that has customers in it? > Not if you need to break up a PA allocation to do it. > But you already cannot do this with the current rules. who said break up PA allocation? not i. the above forbids sale of a complete block when it has customers in it. [ not that i think preventing breaking a block is gonna get us much ] randy --- "Why is our *oil* under *their* sand?" "Why is the routing table over half /24s?" From maem at nic.ad.jp Wed Jun 11 23:13:08 2008 From: maem at nic.ad.jp (MAEMURA Akinori) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 06:13:08 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Global Status of 2008-03 equivalent In-Reply-To: <20080529102056.112F72F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080529102056.112F72F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <200806120613.IJC34881.NNFB@nic.ad.jp> Hi RIPE Colleagues, As the authors of this global policy propossal we would like to update you with the status in the different regions, and we ask you for your voice of support for this policy propossal before the end of the discussion period next June 26th, in order to move it forward. Additionallly to ARIN which was held before RIPE56, LACNIC and AfriNIC reached consensus on the 5*/8 proposal. ARIN: The policy got a big support on its public policy forum and a positive feedback from the ARIN AC to the ARIN Board that states: "The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXI Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds that there is community consensus for Policy Proposal 2007-23: End Policy for IANA IPv4 Allocations to RIRs and moves to it to last call. LACNIC: The policy is in Last Call, having a big consensus (40 to 0 on the show of hands). AFRINIC: The policy got consensus on their meeting last week. We would like also to mention that two policy propossals in LACNIC and ARIN that describe how to distribute part of their last /8: LAC-2008-04 - Special IPv4 Allocations/Assignments Reserved for New Members http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2008-04-propuesta-en.pdf ARIN: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment Regards, MAEMURA Akinori, JPNIC, for joint authors of 2008-03 In message <20080529102056.112F72F583 at herring.ripe.net> "[address-policy-wg] 2008-03 Review Period extended until 26 June 2008 (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space)" "Filiz Yilmaz " wrote: | PDP Number: 2008-03 | Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space | | Dear Colleagues, | | The Review Period for the proposal 2008-03 has been extended until 26 June 2008. | | You can find the full proposal at: | | http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-03.html | | We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments | to . | | Regards | | Filiz Yilmaz | RIPE NCC | Policy Development Officer | | | From sander at steffann.nl Thu Jun 12 10:47:22 2008 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:47:22 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Global Status of 2008-03 equivalent References: <20080529102056.112F72F583@herring.ripe.net> <200806120613.IJC34881.NNFB@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <001d01c8cc68$ef6a8620$4700a8c0@max8> > As the authors of this global policy propossal we would like > to update you with the status in the different regions, and > we ask you for your voice of support for this policy propossal > before the end of the discussion period next June 26th, in > order to move it forward. Thank you for the update Sander Steffann APWG co-chair From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Thu Jun 12 11:13:32 2008 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:13:32 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <484FC3B7.8070702@psg.com> References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <484FB6FB.3000706@psg.com> <484FBE94.3080707@psg.com> <484FC3B7.8070702@psg.com> Message-ID: <7EAE8B7B-4925-402A-A39B-745C1D370C75@ucd.ie> Among a growing number of one-line messages expressing support for the proposal, on 11 Jun 2008, at 13:23 (modulo MUA mangling), Randy Bush wrote: > if i buy a portion of someone's business (see above comment), then > i can > not resell it for 24 months without forcing the customers to renumber? As the process is consensus-oriented, rather than majority-oriented, I would find it helpful to have an authoritative summary issue-tracking statement. I'm not sure whether this should better come from either WG Co-Chair, or rather from the NCC Policy Development Office. /Niall -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Thu Jun 12 16:45:38 2008 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:45:38 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <48513692.4060805@heanet.ie> Remco van Mook wrote: > Dear all, > > Following up on Filiz' announcement, I would like to ask people > supporting 2007-08 to let their voices be heard on this mailing list; we > can only move it forward if the wg chairs see enough support for it (and > so far there has been a lot of informal support). I am more than happy to note my formal support for this proposal. Brian. From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Thu Jun 12 17:19:32 2008 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:19:32 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <23E02DF3-D7CC-49E0-A88D-6381393246BE@ucd.ie> On 11 Jun 2008, at 11:12, Remco van Mook wrote: > we can only move it forward if the wg chairs see enough support for it It's not just about "enough support", after the first few independent statements, but rather about consensus. At this stage, it probably doesn't matter how many more expressions of support arrive; any reasonable observer can see "broad support". What I think is needed next is to resolve the issues raised by one or two people. Conceivably, this might even be done by dismissing their contributions for one reason or another. I'm not saying that would be a good idea, but I haven't seen even that kind of engagement yet. 8-) /Niall -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From heldal at eml.cc Thu Jun 12 18:24:21 2008 From: heldal at eml.cc (Per Heldal) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:24:21 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <1213186518.10412.46.camel@obelix.sandbu> References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <1213186518.10412.46.camel@obelix.sandbu> Message-ID: <1213287861.28021.128.camel@obelix.sandbu> Just being curious; Why exactly shouldn't the LIR on the receiving end of a transfer have to document their need for addresses like everyone else? ? [... or maybe one has to make other policy-changes to compensate for almost all current restrictions relying on the term "documented need".] I can't find anything preventing anybody, as long as they're a registered business, from registering as a LIR. Under current policies that makes no sense as there are no resources to be had without documented need. While torpedoing the allocation terms, the transfer terms place does not place a limit on how many blocks can be acquired either. ?With the suggested exception in force one could take a chance on an inflating market, register a LIR today and start hoarding blocks to be resold 2+years from now. This is clearly not the intention of the proposal and should be easily detected, but it may not be as easy to close such loopholes later. I'd rather prefer the opposite. I.e. that the suggested ?5.5 is changed so that the receiving LIR must have their documented need for resources acknowledged by the NCC _before_ a transfer can be initiated. //per From jay at nominet.org.uk Thu Jun 12 18:32:44 2008 From: jay at nominet.org.uk (Jay Daley) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:32:44 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: I do not support this proposal for the following reasons: * It breaks the policy of providing addresses to those who need them in a fair and non-discriminatory fashion because it allows LIRs to choose who gets spare addresses for arbitrary and secret reasons rather than through the open and transparent process of the RIR. * It is discriminatory to those LIRs in developing countries (within this RIR region) who have fewer IPv4 addresses than other countries for historic reasons and will now have to pay considerably more for addresses by buying them from other LIRs. This will only exacerbate an already difficult global position where some countries are pushing for a change in the global management of the Internet driven by a perception of exclusion. * It is only a partial solution to the problem. Many LIRs believe that much more can be achieved by a determined and well implemented policy on reclaim/reuse. However this policy only addresses the potential transfer solution to the problem, not the potential reclaim/reuse solution. Furthermore, it is likely that this policy, if implemented before a proper reclaim/reuse policy will render such a policy unachievable and unworkable. * It will create a landrush of false or exaggerated allocation requests from people who wish to profit by arbitrage, leading to far faster exhaustion of IPv4 addresses. In other words there will now be a significant difference in the price that IP addresses can be 'bought' from RIPE NCC compared to that at which they can be sold on the open market. This difference in price, the arbitrage opportunity, will lead to an influx of speculators who will work out how to play the system and so lead to many more addresses being allocated than otherwise. * It takes RIPE NCC into the business of a regulator of a secondary market, which is something it has no expertise in and brings considerable risk. RIPE NCC has to develop into this role because the nature of the proposal requires policing to check transfers have happened within the rules. However, with the potential for transfers to have commercial and financial implications there is far greater possibility of costly and complex challenges to RIPE NCCs decisions. This in turns brings with it the risks of scrutiny from competition authorities. * It will lead to rapid degradation of the IPv4 LIR database and loss of control for RIPE NCC in the registration of IPv4 addresses. If LIR A sells a block of IPv4 addresses to LIR B then the legal ownership is adequately covered by the contract that exists between the two and so there is no incentive to register the transfer with RIPE NCC other than when peering with people that make strict use the LIR database. Rival databases, based around IPv4 trading exchanges, will spring up. Jay Daley Nominet UK From drc at virtualized.org Fri Jun 13 03:13:30 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:13:30 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: Jay, On Jun 12, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Jay Daley wrote: > I do not support this proposal for the following reasons: [much elided, not because I necessary agree or disagree, but simply because I wanted to get to this:] > Rival databases, based around IPv4 trading exchanges, will spring up. Why do you believe this won't happen due the vacuum created by the lack of RIR involvement? Thanks, -drc From randy at psg.com Fri Jun 13 03:20:22 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:20:22 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4851CB56.8050903@psg.com> >> Rival databases, based around IPv4 trading exchanges, will spring up. > Why do you believe this won't happen due the vacuum created by the lack > of RIR involvement? and why would a little competition at serving us, the users of all this stuff, necessarily be a bad thing? how much is an x.509/3779 cert and an in-addr.arpa entry worth, anyway? randy From pekkas at netcore.fi Fri Jun 13 07:46:32 2008 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:46:32 +0300 (EEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Jay Daley wrote: > * It breaks the policy of providing addresses to those who need them in a > fair and non-discriminatory fashion because it allows LIRs to choose who > gets spare addresses for arbitrary and secret reasons rather than through > the open and transparent process of the RIR. Uh, what exactly is the "open and transparent process of the RIR"? It appears to me that the process is basically, "send a secret request to RIPE NCC hostmasters, they will process (and possibly follow up) it in secret, but the only thing public and transparent is the IP block granted". The fact that you've been granted an IP address block of some size is public, but the reasoning given or the considerations taken are not. Even if after the fact an allocation causes some astonishment, there is in reality no process to get justification on why the allocation was made the way it has been. As a result, even if you'd follow all the new allocations (not very easy AFAIR), you wouldn't have a way to keep the requestors and hostmasters honest. Now, if the address allocation requests were public and open for public comment, then I could say the process is transparent. As it is, the "fairness" of the process hinges on whether RIPE NCC hostmasters are able to "equalize" the address space requestors somehow. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From jay at nominet.org.uk Fri Jun 13 11:28:29 2008 From: jay at nominet.org.uk (Jay Daley) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:28:29 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: David > > Rival databases, based around IPv4 trading exchanges, will spring up. > > Why do you believe this won't happen due the vacuum created by the > lack of RIR involvement? I can only answer with knowledge of RIPE policy. For a trading exchange and rival database to develop there needs to be sufficient certainty in the transfer between two LIRs to enable a contractual agreement to be constructed. The current policy does not allow sufficient certainty because it does not allow transfers except in the extreme case of one LIR buying another LIR. Jay From jay at nominet.org.uk Fri Jun 13 11:39:32 2008 From: jay at nominet.org.uk (Jay Daley) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:39:32 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <4851CB56.8050903@psg.com> References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <4851CB56.8050903@psg.com> Message-ID: Randy I'd like to continue this thread because I think it goes to the heart of the issues around exhaustion, but it is not directly relevant to this policy proposal, so bearing that in mind ... > >> Rival databases, based around IPv4 trading exchanges, will spring up. > > Why do you believe this won't happen due the vacuum created by the lack > > of RIR involvement? > > and why would a little competition at serving us, the users of all this > stuff, necessarily be a bad thing? Because I believe we should continue with open, consensus-driven, policy based allocation mechanism, not a competitive market, for all the reasons previously given. > how much is an x.509/3779 cert and an in-addr.arpa entry worth, anyway? I think a price of 100m euros for a /8 is not unreasonable. If we were to charge pre-RIR /8s that in order for them to get cert to join global secure routing then the reclaim/reuse solution might start be very effective. Jay From jay at nominet.org.uk Fri Jun 13 11:51:34 2008 From: jay at nominet.org.uk (Jay Daley) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:51:34 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: Pekka > Uh, what exactly is the "open and transparent process of the RIR"? > > It appears to me that the process is basically, "send a secret request > to RIPE NCC hostmasters, they will process (and possibly follow up) it > in secret, but the only thing public and transparent is the IP block > granted". The fact that you've been granted an IP address block of > some size is public, but the reasoning given or the considerations > taken are not. Even if after the fact an allocation causes some > astonishment, there is in reality no process to get justification on > why the allocation was made the way it has been. As a result, even if > you'd follow all the new allocations (not very easy AFAIR), you > wouldn't have a way to keep the requestors and hostmasters honest. > > Now, if the address allocation requests were public and open for > public comment, then I could say the process is transparent. > > As it is, the "fairness" of the process hinges on whether RIPE NCC > hostmasters are able to "equalize" the address space requestors > somehow. If you have a problem with the RIPE NCC hostmasters then take it up with them directly. The policy for the hostmasters to follow is clearly documented and changed through one of the most open and inclusive processes on the planet. I have always found that they implement this policy knowledgeably, thoroughly and in a professional way. I think it would be a good idea for us to see all requests - why not write a policy proposal to that effect? Jay From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Jun 13 13:18:30 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:18:30 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <484FB8C2.5000802@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: > Even though this will give the NCC a bit more work to do, I > do support this proposal. One of the main reasons being that > the allocations will remain to be properly registered and are > thus accountable. I disagree that this will make anyone more accountable. As long as addresses are in use on the Internet, tools such as traceroute make it possible to identify the source of traffic, and the organization which is actually using an IP address block. In fact, I am currently sorting out an issue with SAIX in South Africa announcing, and passing traffic for someone who is using one of our IP address ranges. The fact that our address range is correctly registered in ARIN's database did not stop someone from using it on the Internet, and the fact that the user is not in any RIR database, does not prevent us from solving the problem. In fact, I suspect that most companies don't even care to make the actual user of an IP address range accountable. If the next link in the chain is accountable, i.e. the upstream of this non-accountable IP address user, then the problem can be quickly resolved. Therefore, accountability is not necessary in all cases. At the same time, RIPE can only affect accountability very indirectly with correct database entries. The history of the RIPE database and other RIR databases shows that they don't have a big impact on accountability and they also do not have a great track record for accuracy. I just do not see a connection between greater (or lesser) accountability, and a more accurate (or less accurate) RIPE database. --Michael Dillon From tvest at pch.net Fri Jun 13 13:44:23 2008 From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:44:23 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63F6DC53-0891-47D1-A0AB-7CEA55DF4E8A@pch.net> On Jun 13, 2008, at 7:18 AM, wrote: > >> Even though this will give the NCC a bit more work to do, I >> do support this proposal. One of the main reasons being that >> the allocations will remain to be properly registered and are >> thus accountable. > > I disagree that this will make anyone more accountable. As long as > addresses are in use on the Internet, tools such as traceroute make it > possible to identify the source of traffic, and the organization which > is actually using an IP address block. In fact, I am currently sorting > out an issue with SAIX in South Africa announcing, and passing traffic > for someone who is using one of our IP address ranges. The fact that > our > address range is correctly registered in ARIN's database did not stop > someone from using it on the Internet, and the fact that the user is > not > in any RIR database, does not prevent us from solving the problem. > > In fact, I suspect that most companies don't even care to make the > actual user of an IP address range accountable. If the next link in > the > chain is accountable, i.e. the upstream of this non-accountable IP > address user, then the problem can be quickly resolved. > > Therefore, accountability is not necessary in all cases. At the same > time, RIPE can only affect accountability very indirectly with correct > database entries. The history of the RIPE database and other RIR > databases shows that they don't have a big impact on accountability > and > they also do not have a great track record for accuracy. I just do not > see a connection between greater (or lesser) accountability, and a > more > accurate (or less accurate) RIPE database. > > --Michael Dillon Hi Michael, Does that suggest that accountability and accuracy would be improved if everyone had the same (presumably more accountable) integrated upstream provider / database maintainer? TV From jeroen at unfix.org Fri Jun 13 13:46:53 2008 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:46:53 +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: Message-ID: <48525E2D.2080305@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote (>): I previously wrote (>>): (It is really handy that when you make a comment about something somebody says that you actually name the person so that the person can reply, it solves me having to read way too much email)_ >> Even though this will give the NCC a bit more work to do, I >> do support this proposal. One of the main reasons being that >> the allocations will remain to be properly registered and are >> thus accountable. > > I disagree that this will make anyone more accountable. I didn't say "more", it will remain as it is now. If there was a free invisible trade and what is in whois would not match real life then it would become a real mess and none of the information would be clear. > As long as > addresses are in use on the Internet, tools such as traceroute make it > possible to identify the source of traffic, and the organization which > is actually using an IP address block. In fact, I am currently sorting > out an issue with SAIX in South Africa announcing, and passing traffic > for someone who is using one of our IP address ranges. The fact that our > address range is correctly registered in ARIN's database did not stop > someone from using it on the Internet, and the fact that the user is not > in any RIR database, does not prevent us from solving the problem. Analogy time: That you own a house on paper, doesn't mean that others can't use it by just breaking in and living there. You will have to enforce that differently. Route objects in the IRR's, S-BGP etc come to mind. Properly managing your network is the main thing there. Also traceroute doesn't help a thing already for 10 years due to nice tricks like Rotorouter http://seclists.org/bugtraq/1998/Aug/0091.html ;) > In fact, I suspect that most companies don't even care to make the > actual user of an IP address range accountable. If the next link in the > chain is accountable, i.e. the upstream of this non-accountable IP > address user, then the problem can be quickly resolved. True, which is why it is mostly good enough to have a responsive abuse contact for a block, and not an unresponsive end-user who doesn't even know what it is all about. (Fighting and avoiding abuse is my prime interest in proper records at the RIR's) > Therefore, accountability is not necessary in all cases. At the same > time, RIPE can only affect accountability very indirectly with correct > database entries. The history of the RIPE database and other RIR > databases shows that they don't have a big impact on accountability and > they also do not have a great track record for accuracy. I just do not > see a connection between greater (or lesser) accountability, and a more > accurate (or less accurate) RIPE database. In cases where you see a problem with the accuracy of the database, contact the NCC and they can look into it and in most cases quickly resolve it. That is what I do when I see something funny, which does happen so every now and then. As for saying that this proposal doesn't help, nonsense, it keeps the information correct, which helps a lot more than not having that information at all. 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 michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Jun 13 13:47:49 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:47:49 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <7EAE8B7B-4925-402A-A39B-745C1D370C75@ucd.ie> Message-ID: > As the process is consensus-oriented, rather than > majority-oriented, > I would find it helpful to have an authoritative > summary issue-tracking > statement. I'm not sure whether this should better > come from either WG > Co-Chair, or rather from the NCC Policy Development Office. I agree, and I also think that we need to see a list of the names of all the people who play a role in evaluating wether or not consensus exists, and who make the consensus position into formal RIPE policy. I believe that this is the first RIPE policy change in which the issue of financial conflict of interest is a consideration. Theoretically, the people who manage the policy process could directly benefit financially from that process if they have IP address allocations from RIPE or IANA, or if they own part of a company which has such allocations. Theoretically, some of the people supporting this policy, may wish to have IP address allocation transfers outside of RIPE in order to sell their unneeded IP address without anyone knowing that they are making money from this. We cannot demand everyone participating in the consensus to reveal their potential to benefit financially from the change, but I think that it is reasonable to ask the "officials" to put their financial position on the public record. Given a scenario where LIR A has addresses which they no longer need, and LIR B needs addresses but the RIPE free pool is empty, then the only motivation that I can see for changing the current process is to allow LIR A to sell their addresses in a secret financial transaction. If LIR A no longer needs the addresses then they no longer have a technical justification for having that allocation, and under current rules they should return the addresses to RIPE. If LIR A did this, then LIR B has a chance to receive the addresses that they need. Of course, LIR C may also want those same addresses, and in that scenario, the current RIPE policy has no way to resolve the situation other than first-come, first served. But the proposed changes allow LIR A to run a secret auction and transfer the addresses to the highest bidder. Neither of these scenarios describes a "market" of any colour other than "black". It is precisely to avoid these scenarios that the EU and other jurisdictions have market regulation. This kind of regulation generally involves transparency so that the prices paid in the transaction are publicised. In many cases, the bid prices are also publicised so that we would not only know how much the winner paid in the second scenario, but we would know the bid made by the loser. Considering that IPv4 is now on the road to being obsolete, I don't see any benefit to the IP network operations community from such market scenarios. --Michael Dillon From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Fri Jun 13 14:05:27 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:05:27 +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: <7EAE8B7B-4925-402A-A39B-745C1D370C75@ucd.ie> Message-ID: Michael Dillon wrote: > We cannot demand everyone participating in the consensus to reveal > their potential to benefit financially from the change, but I think > that it is reasonable to ask the "officials" to put their financial > position on the public record. > I'll bite, even though I'm not an 'official' in this process I think. My potential to benefit financially from this change is zero. While I do still represent a LIR (holding a total of about a /17 worth of IPv4 address space) I don't foresee that LIR being part of any selling i.e. making money based on this proposal. All of the arguments why I'm pushing this proposal are on the table, no hidden agenda. As for your remark about IPv4 becoming obsolete - I think I'll be in the old folks home before IPv4 has been abandoned. Best, Remco (no hats) From sander at steffann.nl Fri Jun 13 14:23:57 2008 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:23:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) References: Message-ID: <002401c8cd50$5c7ca710$4700a8c0@max8> Hi Michael, > We cannot demand everyone participating in the consensus to reveal > their potential to benefit financially from the change, but I think > that it is reasonable to ask the "officials" to put their financial > position on the public record. You can always ask :) I personally don't mind giving information about my position. I am currently not working for an LIR. I have a share in Computel Standby BV, which has two /21s. These are both in use, and because /21 is the minimal allocation size those blocks can't be split up. This means that Computel can't transfer any address space, and my potential personal benefit is 0. Sander Steffann APWG co-chair From randy at psg.com Fri Jun 13 14:32:00 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:32:00 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <4851CB56.8050903@psg.com> Message-ID: <485268C0.7070605@psg.com> >> how much is an x.509/3779 cert and an in-addr.arpa entry worth, anyway? > I think a price of 100m euros for a /8 is not unreasonable. If we were to > charge pre-RIR /8s that in order for them to get cert to join global > secure routing then the reclaim/reuse solution might start be very > effective. and charge the RIRs for those /8s too, of course. what goes around ... randy From dave.wilson at heanet.ie Thu Jun 12 18:51:49 2008 From: dave.wilson at heanet.ie (Dave Wilson) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:51:49 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <1213186518.10412.46.camel@obelix.sandbu> References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <1213186518.10412.46.camel@obelix.sandbu> Message-ID: <48515425.8070505@heanet.ie> Hello Per, > The draft ?5.5 says: "Demonstration of need for the address space by the > receiving LIR to the RIPE NCC is not required during transfers." ... > Personally I'd prefer the present policies to continue, where a block > must be returned to RIPE before the NCC re-allocates according to normal > rules. That does not encourage the creation of a market, but has anyone > yet been able to precent viable plans for a scheme able to reclaim > enough addresses to support current network growth for any significant > time past depletion of the free pool? These are good questions. My feeling is that recent lessons, particularly those we heard at RIPE 55, suggest that any alternatives to 2007-08 are more troublesome than they appear, and probably more trouble than they are worth. Regarding reclamation, I'd certainly support any reclamation that would service the run rate. Leo's experience with reclaiming 14/8, however, suggests to me that even a concerted effort at the low-hanging fruit would not service a fraction of the current run rate. The main consequence of accepting 2007-08, imho, will be to create a system of transfers that will occur where we can see it, and so allow us to continue to enforce policy and maintain a meaningful WHOIS database. Crucial to that objective is that the result must be better for the user than black-market or grey-market alternatives. (The canonical example here is iTunes music store vs. p2p filesharing.) Since we rely on consensus to implement our policies, not just as a show of hands in a room but implemented in BGP filters on live routers, the method of transfers allowed by 2007-08 must pass that test. If it does not, ISPs operating as "consenting adults" may withdraw consent by agreeing their own rules between themselves, without reference to RIPE policies. If this becomes a widespread practice, we will have some difficulty maintaining policy enforcement and meaningful WHOIS in the future. I would not accept that we should legislate for a free for all for fear of getting a free for all, but we must choose our restrictions carefully so as to keep the burden on the user to the minimum. In that context, I would be wary of adding any further restrictions to 2007-08, and I support the proposal as it stands. Best regards, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Senior Network Engineer HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +353-1-660 9040 fax: +353-1-660 3666 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ H323 GDS:0035301101738 PGP: 1024D/C757ADA9 From EricS at telekom.de Fri Jun 13 06:06:01 2008 From: EricS at telekom.de (Erics) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:06:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) Message-ID: <6E6739BC95294242979BDAA042E4871B03C96E21@S4DE9JSAAHY.nord.t-com.de> We do not support the 2007-8 proposal! We have a clear policy that obligates LIRs to give back unused address blocks to RIPE-NCC. This is a clear procedure. If we open a kind of address-market we establish some more abuse possibilities. All in all we endore Per?s statement given below on June 11th. Eric Schmidt Deutsche Telekom Technischer Service Central Services | LIR de.telekom From sander at steffann.nl Fri Jun 13 15:06:58 2008 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:06:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) Message-ID: <003601c8cd56$67309da0$4700a8c0@max8> Hello everyone, In the last two days there have been a lot of messages about proposal 2007-08. We have seen support, but also some concerns. To be able to reach consensus, these concerns have to be discussed. Here is a summary: Randy Bush: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00355.html - Transfering address space still assigned to end users - Inter-region transfers Per Heldal: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00354.html - Keep demonstrated need criteria for address space by receiving LIR - Legal implications for RIPE NCC - Viable plans for reclaiming space to continue with current policies for a significant time? http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00365.html - Possiblity of setting up LIRs for hoarding Jay Daley: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00366.html - Seller can choose who to sell to, not transparent - Discrimination of LIRs in developing countries in the RIPE region - Reclaim/reuse could be more efficient than transfering - Faster depletion because of hoarding - Legal implications for RIPE NCC - Degradation of RIPE DB because of rival trading exchange databases Eric Schmidt: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00381.html - Breaks the current policy that unused address blocks return to RIPE NCC - Transfers open up more possibilities for abuse ETNO: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00293.html - A transfer system can not ensure a process that is open, transparent and equitable - Negative impact on routing tables - Keep demonstrated need criteria for address space by receiving LIR I want to thank everyone for voicing their support and concerns. At this point in the process, please focus the discussion on the open issues. Sander Steffann APWG co-chair From gert at space.net Fri Jun 13 15:19:10 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:19:10 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <6E6739BC95294242979BDAA042E4871B03C96E21@S4DE9JSAAHY.nord.t-com.de> References: <6E6739BC95294242979BDAA042E4871B03C96E21@S4DE9JSAAHY.nord.t-com.de> Message-ID: <20080613131910.GZ11038@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 06:06:01AM +0200, Erics wrote: > We have a clear policy that obligates LIRs to give back unused > address blocks to RIPE-NCC. Do we? I have seen that claim a couple of times now, but I would like to see it backed by actual references. The policy says that if the criteria for an allocation are no longer valid, the allocation is no longer valid - but that does not apply to blocks that are only partially used, while the original criteria ("we have customers, we plan to give them addresses") are still met. A block might be filled to 90%, which means "all allocation criteria are met", and if that block is big enough (like a DTAG /10), the remaining 10% are a fairly big number of addresses. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From gert at space.net Fri Jun 13 15:25:01 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:25:01 +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: <7EAE8B7B-4925-402A-A39B-745C1D370C75@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <20080613132501.GA11038@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:47:49PM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > Given a scenario where LIR A has addresses which they no longer need, > and LIR B needs addresses but the RIPE free pool is empty, then the only > motivation that I can see for changing the current process is to allow > LIR A to sell their addresses in a secret financial transaction. This seems somewhat distorted to me. Without the policy change, that transaction would need to be done secretly. With the proposed policy change, it can (and should) be done openly, because you *can* do it openly, and document it. I can't see why "with that change, the chance that someone makes money out of it" is higher - it might actually hamper the black market enough that less money flows. (For the records: I work for a LIR that has some unused addresses in its allocations from the RIPE NCC, but I claim that the blocks are fragmented enough that the chance to sell any sort of useful contiguous block is near zero. Big Telcos with large ranges of dynamically assigned blocks have a far easier stance here than small ISPs that would actually need to renumber customers to free a useful block.) 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 michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Jun 13 16:22:50 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:22:50 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20080613132501.GA11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:47:49PM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > Given a scenario where LIR A has addresses which they no > longer need, > > and LIR B needs addresses but the RIPE free pool is empty, then the > > only motivation that I can see for changing the current > process is to > > allow LIR A to sell their addresses in a secret financial > transaction. > > This seems somewhat distorted to me. > > Without the policy change, that transaction would need to be > done secretly. Without policy change, LIR A no longer has the right to those addresses since they no longer have technical justification for the size of allocation which they have. It is historical practice for RIRs to not ask for the addresses to be returned right away since there is the assumption that LIR A has the intention to use those addresses in the future and that there will be no further IP address allocation requests from LIR A until they have used the addresses. This historical practice protects the larger aggregate block size which can be announced via BGP as a single prefix. But the new policy begins with the assumption that LIR A has no intention to use these addresses in the future, otherwise why would they transfer them. Further, the new policy does not protect a single aggregated BG prefix. Under the existing policy, when an LIR no longer intends to use their IP addresses in a network they are supposed to give them back to RIPE. That is OPEN and that is DOCUMENTED. An LIR could also just sell their network and all the addresses including the extra unjustified ones. If the new owner intends to use those extra addresses, then there is no problem. This kind of transfer is OPEN and it is DOCUMENTED. Today, an LIR can sell addresses in secret if they want to. If that is not fraud then it is certainly unethical. I would be happy to see LIRs buying and selling IP addresses in this way, under the current policy, because it *IS* unethical, and it will end up with these LIRs losing the customers who want to connect with a reputable ISP that is willing to do the hard work to make IPv6 feasible as the core Internet protocol. > Big Telcos > with large ranges of dynamically assigned blocks have a far > easier stance here than small ISPs that would actually need > to renumber customers to free a useful block.) And yet, these companies are ETNO members and they oppose the change at the policy level. In other words, even if the engineering group in a big telco might like the idea of selling some addresses to reduce their overall costs, the regulatory relations part of the big telco is opposed to this. What is the point of introducing a new policy to benefit the big telcos when the big telcos do not want the new policy? --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Jun 13 16:30:13 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:30:13 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <48515425.8070505@heanet.ie> Message-ID: > Regarding reclamation, I'd certainly support any reclamation > that would service the run rate. Leo's experience with > reclaiming 14/8, however, suggests to me that even a > concerted effort at the low-hanging fruit would not service a > fraction of the current run rate. Servicing the run rate means having enough IPv4 addresses to satisfy demand. A short study of the projections from Tony Hain or Geoff Huston will demonstrate that there is no way on earth we can satisfy the run rate beyond the next two to three years unless we see enough IPv6 deployment to cause overall IPv4 demand to DECREASE and then REVERSE. Without IPv6 deployment, no actions will have any positive effect. To get REVERSAL, where companies start returning unused IPv4 addresses, we need a lot of IPv6 deployment. Tinkering with RIPE policies is NOT a substitute for IPv6 deployment. --Michael Dillon From drc at virtualized.org Fri Jun 13 16:44:50 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:44:50 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: Jay, On Jun 13, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Jay Daley wrote: > David >>> Rival databases, based around IPv4 trading exchanges, will spring >>> up. >> Why do you believe this won't happen due the vacuum created by the >> lack of RIR involvement? > > I can only answer with knowledge of RIPE policy. That's irrelevant to the question I'm asking. > For a trading exchange > and rival database to develop there needs to be sufficient certainty > in > the transfer between two LIRs to enable a contractual agreement to be > constructed. No. For a rival database to develop (and be useful), there needs to be sufficient certainty that the transfer between two LIRs is recorded and published. What happens between the two parties to result in that transfer is irrelevant to this. > The current policy does not allow sufficient certainty > because it does not allow transfers except in the extreme case of > one LIR > buying another LIR. Indeed. And 2007-08 is proposing a way to allow RIPE-NCC to allow certainty in other forms of transfer. If they do not, I am curious why you believe someone else won't. Regards, -drc From nigel at titley.com Fri Jun 13 16:55:41 2008 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:55:41 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48528A6D.9060503@titley.com> Michael Dillon said: > To get REVERSAL, where companies start returning unused IPv4 addresses, > we need a lot of IPv6 deployment. > > Tinkering with RIPE policies is NOT a substitute for IPv6 deployment. > I don't think anyone, least of all the authors of 2007-08, thinks that it is a substitute for IPv6 deployment. Most people feel that this is the proper solution in an ideal world. However most of us feel that IPv6 deployment to large consumer DSL networks is just not going to happen before IPv4 runs out and in that case some mechanism for recovery of unused space will be needed. Experiences with trying to get existing holders of unused space to hand it back without financial incentives (and regardless of what RIR policies say on the matter) make me pessimistic that altruism will save the day. Nigel From leo.vegoda at icann.org Fri Jun 13 17:08:37 2008 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:08:37 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <48528A6D.9060503@titley.com> Message-ID: On 13/06/2008 3:55, "Nigel Titley" wrote: > Michael Dillon said: >> To get REVERSAL, where companies start returning unused IPv4 addresses, >> we need a lot of IPv6 deployment. >> >> Tinkering with RIPE policies is NOT a substitute for IPv6 deployment. >> > I don't think anyone, least of all the authors of 2007-08, thinks that > it is a substitute for IPv6 deployment. Most people feel that this is > the proper solution in an ideal world. However most of us feel that IPv6 > deployment to large consumer DSL networks is just not going to happen > before IPv4 runs out and in that case some mechanism for recovery of > unused space will be needed. Experiences with trying to get existing > holders of unused space to hand it back without financial incentives > (and regardless of what RIR policies say on the matter) make me > pessimistic that altruism will save the day. I agree that there is a benefit in allowing a financial incentive to encourage transfers of address space to where it can be used more efficiently. But I think that any hope of providing enough for large consumer DSL networks to continue growing at a steady rate, let alone a similar to rate what we see now, is very optimistic. Maybe I am unduly pessimistic about what is likely to be made available. Regards, Leo Vegoda From jay at nominet.org.uk Fri Jun 13 17:11:25 2008 From: jay at nominet.org.uk (Jay Daley) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:11:25 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: David We might have a rapid stalemate here because there is not much more I can add, except to say that I disagree, but I'll give it a go. > > For a trading exchange > > and rival database to develop there needs to be sufficient certainty > > in > > the transfer between two LIRs to enable a contractual agreement to be > > constructed. > > No. For a rival database to develop (and be useful), there needs to > be sufficient certainty that the transfer between two LIRs is recorded > and published. What happens between the two parties to result in that > transfer is irrelevant to this. Let me give you an example, constructed perhaps, but hopefully illustrative. I set up an address exchange and say to people "advertise your spare addresses here and I'll take a commission on all sales" I build a database to support it, an automated bidding tool and anonymised listings of the addresses some how. So now people are trading addresses and everything is working smoothly, but we will still have all this hassle of updating the RIPE NCC database for each trade. To make life easier I offer to do it for you. But rather than ask for your certs why not just transfer the addresses over to me when you want to sell them and I can then do the transfer after the sale. But I don't just do that every time, rather I say to the buyer, "it will be an extra 100 euros if you want the RIPE NCC database updated". They ask me is that OK and point to the contract they have saying, "look here is a proper legal contract enforceable in law, your trade is registered and viewable in my database (and I am the exchange after all), RIPE NCC is just an irrelevant formality". And yes I will get away with it because most people will look at the contract and say "that's good enough for me" and RIPE NCC will have to deal with my lawyers if they want to challenge it. > > > The current policy does not allow sufficient certainty > > because it does not allow transfers except in the extreme case of > > one LIR > > buying another LIR. > > Indeed. And 2007-08 is proposing a way to allow RIPE-NCC to allow > certainty in other forms of transfer. If they do not, I am curious > why you believe someone else won't. It is not "allowing RIPE NCC a way to allow certainty" it is simply allowing certainty, whether or not RIPE NCC is involved. Jay From jay at nominet.org.uk Fri Jun 13 17:16:44 2008 From: jay at nominet.org.uk (Jay Daley) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:16:44 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: > euros if you want the RIPE NCC database updated". They ask me is that OK > and point to the contract they have saying, "look here is a proper legal > contract enforceable in law, your trade is registered and viewable in my > database (and I am the exchange after all), RIPE NCC is just an irrelevant > formality". irritatingly there is a missing "I" in that sentence - "and I point to the contract saying ..." From tvest at pch.net Fri Jun 13 18:29:08 2008 From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:29:08 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: On Jun 12, 2008, at 9:13 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Jay, > > On Jun 12, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Jay Daley wrote: >> I do not support this proposal for the following reasons: > > [much elided, not because I necessary agree or disagree, but simply > because I wanted to get to this:] >> Rival databases, based around IPv4 trading exchanges, will spring up. > > Why do you believe this won't happen due the vacuum created by the > lack of RIR involvement? > > Thanks, > -drc Hi David, It sounds like you're leaning toward favoring systems for recognizing inter-party transfers that are "nice" (i.e., that conform to whatever policies the community is willing to abide) because you predict that the community is unwilling to abide policies that that some members don't like -- specifically the ones that forbid inter-party transfers... So, that's a familiar kind of argument for "decriminalization" in other contexts, although I've only heard it used by people who think that the law in question was *always* inherently wrong or silly (c.f., minority rights restrictions, some kinds of victimless crimes like drug use, consensual adult sexual behavior, etc.), or else now completely anachronistic because it has no common/everyday referent in the modern world (c.f., all of the above plus feeding your horse in front of the saloon, etc). The only question -- and the one that people seem to be unwilling to engage -- is whether this particular prohibition was always inherently silly or rather important in its own right, whether the infraction to be legalized was/is trivial or truly dangerous. ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/95apr/area.and.wg.reports/ops/cidrd/cidrd.rekhter.slides.ps Was Yakov always wrong? Has something changed to make him less wrong today? Even the sale/exchange of private property between two private parties is not always a victimless crime. I can think of a variety of cases of private goods in which sales restrictions apply because of specific associated licensing requirements (e.g., cars, guns, etc.) -- which are in place themselves because of the potential for misuse (i.e., crimes with victims) of the goods in question. In all of those other cases, however, the property rights are protected, and the licensing requirements enforced, by external authorities with the means and authority and abundant willingness to actually en-force. Thought experiment: how many people would bother to register their cars, or even to get driver's licenses at all, if the "highway patrol" and it's equivalent didn't exist -- had never existed -- and if cars were invisible, ephemeral, and could vanish at will? Expecting drivers to voluntarily subject themselves to such an egregious, vulnerability- creating violation of privacy would be unrealistic, wouldn't it? How much less likely would it be if speed limits and other road-related laws had just been rescinded because people don't obey them anyway? Many assertions have been made to the effect that privatization of address space is not the intent of these proposals, so I'll happily pass over that can of worms here. It's not relevant to the above analogy anyway. As you rightly note, nature abhors a vacuum. I just think that we should take in filling one not to create other, even bigger and more serious ones. TV, speaking for self alone From nigel at titley.com Fri Jun 13 18:37:54 2008 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:37:54 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4852A262.3080804@titley.com> Leo Vegoda wrote: > > > I agree that there is a benefit in allowing a financial incentive to > encourage transfers of address space to where it can be used more > efficiently. But I think that any hope of providing enough for large > consumer DSL networks to continue growing at a steady rate, let alone a > similar to rate what we see now, is very optimistic. > > Maybe I am unduly pessimistic about what is likely to be made available. > No, I think you are dead on the button. I can see two scenarios: 1. Despite 2007-08 we run out of v4, no market develops and we all move to v6 2. 2007-08 allows a (larger or smaller) market to develop and helps to lubricate the move to v6 as the bean counters at last see that there is a cost to not investing in it. No way is it going to free up enough v4 space to allow us to continue at the current rate of use, but then it wasn't intended to. Nigel From randy at psg.com Fri Jun 13 18:43:15 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:43:15 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <4852A262.3080804@titley.com> References: <4852A262.3080804@titley.com> Message-ID: <4852A3A3.7020307@psg.com> > 1. Despite 2007-08 we run out of v4, no market develops and we all > move to v6 > 2. 2007-08 allows a (larger or smaller) market to develop and helps > to lubricate the move to v6 as the bean counters at last see that > there is a cost to not investing in it. > > No way is it going to free up enough v4 space to allow us to continue > at the current rate of use, but then it wasn't intended to. agree wholeheartedly. but it's easy to agree with simple math :) i also agree with lucy who says almost all of the trading will be done in a year or two, to get the underused space in play, and there it will stay, actually used. randy From nigel at titley.com Fri Jun 13 18:48:05 2008 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:48:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <4852A3A3.7020307@psg.com> References: <4852A262.3080804@titley.com> <4852A3A3.7020307@psg.com> Message-ID: <4852A4C5.3010406@titley.com> Randy Bush wrote: > agree wholeheartedly. but it's easy to agree with simple math :) > I'm a simple person... I like simple maths :-) > i also agree with lucy who says almost all of the trading will be done > in a year or two, to get the underused space in play, and there it will > stay, actually used. > > I happen to share that view and if it happens then I think we have gained something valuable at very little cost. Nigel From drc at virtualized.org Fri Jun 13 19:20:19 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:20:19 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <4851CB56.8050903@psg.com> Message-ID: <5DA47951-50FB-40AE-8657-227BF2A207CC@virtualized.org> Jay, On Jun 13, 2008, at 2:39 AM, Jay Daley wrote: > Because I believe we should continue with open, consensus-driven, > policy > based allocation mechanism, Except there won't be an allocation mechanism. There will only be the possibility of a re-assignment mechanism since there won't be anything left to allocate. If something like 2007-08 isn't implemented, I'm curious why you believe re-assignments won't occur outside of RIPE-NCC. Regards, -drc From drc at virtualized.org Fri Jun 13 19:28:41 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:28:41 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <5510FF40-17C1-4C30-B996-602A92F2F212@virtualized.org> Jay, On Jun 13, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Jay Daley wrote: > I set up an address exchange and say to people "advertise > your spare addresses here and I'll take a commission on all sales" > ... > And yes I will get away with it because most people will look at the > contract and say "that's good enough for me" and RIPE NCC will have to > deal with my lawyers if they want to challenge it. Your example is pretty much exactly what I will predict will happen if RIPE-NCC does not implement something like 2007-08 (the only quibbles would be that the registry need not be the trading floor and I see no point in the alternative registry bothering to update RIPE-NCC). You appear to believe that if RIPE-NCC does not implement something like 2007-08, your example won't happen. I'm curious as to why you believe this. Regards, -drc From drc at virtualized.org Fri Jun 13 20:32:24 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:32:24 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: Tom, On Jun 13, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Tom Vest wrote: > It sounds like you're leaning toward favoring systems for > recognizing inter-party transfers that are "nice" (i.e., that > conform to whatever policies the community is willing to abide) > because you predict that the community is unwilling to abide > policies that that some members don't like -- specifically the ones > that forbid inter-party transfers... More or less. I'm interested in recognizing that: a) there are folks who will continue to need IPv4 addresses for the foreseeable future b) there are folks who will have more IPv4 addresses than they need c) as opposed to communist nation-states, the mechanisms the RIRs have to enforce the shared dictum "to each according to need" are extremely limited and absolutely rely on "the consent of the governed", many (if not most) of which are commercial organizations generally intent on continuing to grow their businesses. Because I do not believe the RIRs have repealed the Law of Supply and Demand, (a) and (b) will result in a market. Because of (c), the RIRs can either choose to encourage alternative registries (and making themselves irrelevant) by not recognizing the transfers that occur in that market or they can choose to perform the function of registering address assignments made between consenting parties and thereby maintaining some ability to affect address reassignment policy. My impression is that most (rational) folks agree with (a) and (b). I gather (c) is where there is disagreement and I'm trying to understand why. Hence my question to Jay. > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/95apr/area.and.wg.reports/ops/cidrd/cidrd.rekhter.slides.ps > Was Yakov always wrong? Has something changed to make him less wrong > today? Yakov was attempting to demonstrate that "address ownership" is detrimental to scaling the Internet if you assume routing technology does not change. It was an argument for PA address space and against PI. This remains true, but as evidenced by the proliferation of PI policies and assignments, is largely ignored today. It is also largely irrelevant to this discussion since I (at least) am not making the assumption that service providers will be excluded from the market (indeed, I suspect they're going to be the most desperate to obtain address space since enterprises can and do sit happily behind a NAT box numbered with PA space). Regards, -drc From jay at nominet.org.uk Fri Jun 13 20:37:31 2008 From: jay at nominet.org.uk (Jay Daley) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:37:31 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <5510FF40-17C1-4C30-B996-602A92F2F212@virtualized.org> References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <5510FF40-17C1-4C30-B996-602A92F2F212@virtualized.org> Message-ID: David > You appear to believe that if RIPE-NCC does not implement something > like 2007-08, your example won't happen. I'm curious as to why you > believe this. No I don't believe that. Without 2007-08, if no attempt is made at a stronger reclaim/reuse then slowly my example will appear and yes it will be messy. With 2008-08 my example will appear rapidly and it will be messy. Jay From drc at virtualized.org Fri Jun 13 20:57:18 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:57:18 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <5510FF40-17C1-4C30-B996-602A92F2F212@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <82A348FB-1B02-4CA5-90EC-5484FE1C9FA6@virtualized.org> Jay, On Jun 13, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Jay Daley wrote: > No I don't believe that. Without 2007-08, if no attempt is made at a > stronger reclaim/reuse then slowly my example will appear and yes it > will > be messy. With 2008-08 my example will appear rapidly and it will > be messy. So there is a mess either way. I agree. I guess the major point of difference is that I would like to see the RIRs maintain some level of control as the IPv4 address space reassignment regime evolves. I don't see that happening without something like 2007-08. (I also suspect you're far more optimistic than I regarding timeframes for your scenario, but I've probably been around too many VCs and 'domainers'). Regards, -drc From tvest at pch.net Fri Jun 13 21:20:47 2008 From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:20:47 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4B7BB59D-EAD6-44D2-8E8A-39CC5AACE017@pch.net> On Jun 13, 2008, at 2:32 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Tom, > > On Jun 13, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Tom Vest wrote: >> It sounds like you're leaning toward favoring systems for >> recognizing inter-party transfers that are "nice" (i.e., that >> conform to whatever policies the community is willing to abide) >> because you predict that the community is unwilling to abide >> policies that that some members don't like -- specifically the ones >> that forbid inter-party transfers... > > More or less. Okay, that's clear enough. But it makes me even more curious about your assumptions about what will follow. > I'm interested in recognizing that: > > a) there are folks who will continue to need IPv4 addresses for the > foreseeable future > b) there are folks who will have more IPv4 addresses than they need > c) as opposed to communist nation-states, the mechanisms the RIRs > have to enforce the shared dictum "to each according to need" are > extremely limited and absolutely rely on "the consent of the > governed", many (if not most) of which are commercial organizations > generally intent on continuing to grow their businesses. > > Because I do not believe the RIRs have repealed the Law of Supply > and Demand, (a) and (b) will result in a market. Because of (c), > the RIRs can either choose to encourage alternative registries (and > making themselves irrelevant) by not recognizing the transfers that > occur in that market or they can choose to perform the function of > registering address assignments made between consenting parties and > thereby maintaining some ability to affect address reassignment > policy. > > My impression is that most (rational) folks agree with (a) and (b). > I gather (c) is where there is disagreement and I'm trying to > understand why. Hence my question to Jay. I guess I share that level of rationality, at least, and I don't know of anyone who has illusions about the power of RIRs to enforce anything. Perhaps Jay is like me, trying to highlight some possible consequences that the "governed" might wish to consider before consenting to go down this particular one-way street. >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/95apr/area.and.wg.reports/ops/cidrd/cidrd.rekhter.slides.ps >> Was Yakov always wrong? Has something changed to make him less >> wrong today? > > Yakov was attempting to demonstrate that "address ownership" is > detrimental to scaling the Internet if you assume routing technology > does not change. It was an argument for PA address space and > against PI. This remains true, but as evidenced by the > proliferation of PI policies and assignments, is largely ignored > today. It is also largely irrelevant to this discussion since I (at > least) am not making the assumption that service providers will be > excluded from the market (indeed, I suspect they're going to be the > most desperate to obtain address space since enterprises can and do > sit happily behind a NAT box numbered with PA space). I totally agree with you on this last point, which is why I assume that new entrants will immediately be priced out of the market. That in itself will probably be sufficient to bring the self-governance experiment to an end. But even if I'm too pessimistic on this point, the act of monetizing IPv4 -- and making it very very valuable, but only so long as most "real Internet resources" (users, content, etc.) are only reachable by traversing some IPv4 bottleneck(s) somewhere -- is going to incentivize those who inherit such choke points to maintain them, and thus the value of their IPv4 assets, for as close to forever as possible. It's probably safe to say that one of the minimum requirements for describing a sector as "open" or "competitive" is that new entrants do not have to pay competing incumbent for the privilege of entering, at any price that the incumbent might wish to set. Those who have accepted that a RIR-as-cartel lawsuit risk precludes other alternatives may wish to consider how to mitigate other kinds of antitrust-related legal risks as well. TV From drc at virtualized.org Fri Jun 13 22:57:43 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:57:43 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <4B7BB59D-EAD6-44D2-8E8A-39CC5AACE017@pch.net> References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <4B7BB59D-EAD6-44D2-8E8A-39CC5AACE017@pch.net> Message-ID: Tom, On Jun 13, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Tom Vest wrote: > Perhaps Jay is like me, trying to highlight some possible > consequences that the "governed" might wish to consider before > consenting to go down this particular one-way street. The point is, we've already gone down the one-way street. The question is whether or not we allow the RIRs to help drive or get run over. > I totally agree with you on this last point, which is why I assume > that new entrants will immediately be priced out of the market. Ignoring the black market, without something like 2007-08 after the free pool exhausts, there can't be any new entrants in the IPv4 world. Period. [And no, I'm not so cynical as to believe that this is why folks like ETNO argue against 2007-08 and their ilk.] With something like 2007-08, the cost of doing business for a new IPv4 entrant goes up (it'll be going up for everybody), but doing business is still an option and the RIRs still have some ability to set policy regarding reassignments. Sorry, what was the goal again? Regards, -drc From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Jun 13 23:33:48 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:33:48 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Thought experiment: how many people would bother to register > their cars, or even to get driver's licenses at all, if the > "highway patrol" > and it's equivalent didn't exist This has actually been a problem here in London where the highway patrol does not exist. After Central London congestion charging was instituted with cameras that read car number plates in real time, they started to crack down on these vehicles. And in the past couple of years they have started patrolling streets in areas where the offenders are most likely to live, looking for cars with expired registrations. So this is a case where people did behave as you predict, and this has led to the creation of something like a "highway patrol". --Michael Dillon From gih at apnic.net Sat Jun 14 05:09:50 2008 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:09:50 +1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4853367E.3000708@apnic.net> Tom Vest wrote: > The only question -- and the one that people seem to be unwilling to > engage -- is whether this particular prohibition was always inherently > silly or rather important in its own right, whether the infraction to be > legalized was/is trivial or truly dangerous. This strikes me as a generalization arising from a false premise - namely that the external environment has not changed in any manner, and the change is purely a change in the manner in which the address distribution function occurs. Of course that is simple not the case here, which becomes apparent in looking at the question you then posed: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/95apr/area.and.wg.reports/ops/cidrd/cidrd.rekhter.slides.ps > > > Was Yakov always wrong? Has something changed to make him less wrong today? Was Yakov always wrong? no Is he less "wrong" today - dunno - he was right back then, but the environment HAS changed, so the "less wrong" question is rather irrelevant isn't it? As most folk on this planet are aware (and elsewhere too these days, considering the level of air play of this particular story :-) ), the environmental shift from the perception of abundance in IPv4 addresses at the time to a current perception of scarcity and looming exhaustion is a massive change in our environment. This percpetion is now driving industry behaviours, and I'd claim that the steady increasing address allocation rates over the past 2 - 3 years are not unconnected with this shift in perception. The observations that apparently drive much of today's consideration are: - this industry is just too large, too diverse and too bound to low margin commodity operations for much of it's Internet activities to drive (and fund) the completion a comprehensive transition to IPv6 within the timeframe available as defined by the remaining IPv4 unallocated address pools. The demand for addresses, as defined by the prevailing needs-based address distribution policies and the associated industry demand levels, appears to extend beyond the anticipated point of exhaustion of the current supply system. - this implies that there will be a continuing need for IPv4 addresses after the RIR pool has exhausted within this industry. - It is also observed that there is considerable diversity in the current value of "use" of addresses today, and it is likely that this broad diversity of exploitative value of addresses will persist. It appears that in this case once the existing supply mechanisms have been exhausted, then the supply mechanisms to meet the continued demand will come from existing holders of address space. Its also pretty clear that such supply mechanisms will not meet every last possible demand, so a regime of scarcity-based redistribution will eventuate to equilibriate supply and demand. In such scarcity-based redistribution mechanisms, those applications that place a higher exploitative value on IPv4 addresses would be capable of making a case to transfer addresses from an existing address holder who has a lower value associated with the addresses. This equilibriation is conventionally based on establishing a valuation point whereby the residual demand levels can be met in that those demands where the exploitative value is still higher that the valuation point will be satified, and those who have placed a lower valuation on meeting their demand will seek substitutes. Now all of this would be irrelevant if we were still in an environment of abundance - all those who had a case for addresses, whatever the exploitative value each party places on the addresses, could be met, in which case you get back to the proposition that the only residual 'value' of a particular address over any other is the relative ease with which it is routed - which is what Yakov's slide pack is effectively saying. But this is all basic theory of markets, isn't it Tom. I don't I've said a single thing about market valuation, exploitative values and substitution that isn't in any standard text on the theory of markets! Is routing so fragile that addresses cannot move at all? I think not. Is IPv6 so busted and NATs just so unworkable that any form of substitution is completely untenable? I think not. Are there addresses out there that are unused, or used in contexts where subtitution may take place? I believe so. So I'm left with a question or two back to Tom via this list: Why do you think that in this case the conventional mechanisms that we've use explicitly or implicitly to equilibriate demand, supply and substitution within human activity sectors for, oh, a millenium or five, in times of scarcity of supply and competing demands have to be suspended and some magic substituted in its place just for IPv4 addresses? And the second question is: Equally I'm really unclear what you see as the alternative framework to use here to address the situation. Do you believe that there are credible alternative approaches that do not involve the movement of IPv4 addresses between entities beside the "lets do a complete IPv6 transition in the next 24 months across the entire globe" approach? Geoff From tvest at pch.net Sat Jun 14 08:09:23 2008 From: tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:09:23 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <4853367E.3000708@apnic.net> References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <4853367E.3000708@apnic.net> Message-ID: <39A41940-564D-4DC9-A04F-BBE320905DBD@pch.net> Hi Geoff, Thanks for the response. This is all very interesting! On Jun 13, 2008, at 11:09 PM, Geoff Huston wrote: > Tom Vest wrote: > >> The only question -- and the one that people seem to be unwilling >> to engage -- is whether this particular prohibition was always >> inherently silly or rather important in its own right, whether the >> infraction to be legalized was/is trivial or truly dangerous. > > This strikes me as a generalization arising from a false premise - > namely > that the external environment has not changed in any manner, and the > change > is purely a change in the manner in which the address distribution > function > occurs. Of course that is simple not the case here, which becomes > apparent > in looking at the question you then posed: > >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-online-proceedings/95apr/area.and.wg.reports/ops/cidrd/cidrd.rekhter.slides.ps >> Was Yakov always wrong? Has something changed to make him less >> wrong today? > > Was Yakov always wrong? no > > Is he less "wrong" today - dunno - he was right back then, but the > environment > HAS changed, so the "less wrong" question is rather irrelevant isn't > it? > > As most folk on this planet are aware (and elsewhere too these days, > considering > the level of air play of this particular story :-) ), the > environmental shift from the perception of abundance in IPv4 > addresses at the time to a current perception > of scarcity and looming exhaustion is a massive change in our > environment. > This percpetion is now driving industry behaviours, and I'd claim > that the > steady increasing address allocation rates over the past 2 - 3 years > are not > unconnected with this shift in perception. > > The observations that apparently drive much of today's consideration > are: > > - this industry is just too large, too diverse and too bound to low > margin > commodity operations for much of it's Internet activities to drive > (and fund) > the completion a comprehensive transition to IPv6 within the > timeframe available as defined by the remaining IPv4 unallocated > address pools. This is an interesting observation. How much would you say is the additional marginal capital cost of migrating to IPv6, for a network operator that has purchased network gear in the last 2-3 years? Presumably anything older that that will be coming up for refresh anyway, and anything newer than that would be pretty good to go, wouldn't it? Do you think that the costs scale roughly in line with the stakes involved -- i.e., that large operators with large capital stocks and large market shares will face greater costs than smaller operators, or do you think that the gross costs and benefits are somehow misaligned? If they are aligned, then I'm not sure why the size or the diversity of the Internet should have any bearing at all on this. Doesn't competition help to reveal when margins are really "too low" -- in fact, isn't competition the only way to know what margins are, or what they should be? And if there is no competition, calculation of margins are pretty arbitrary, aren't they? > The demand for addresses, as defined by the prevailing needs-based > address > distribution policies and the associated industry demand levels, > appears > to extend beyond the anticipated point of exhaustion of the current > supply system. I think everyone would agree that the demand for *logical attachment to the Internet*, as currently/contingently illuminated by the IPv4 run rate, clearly shows that demand is going to continue beyond the point of IPv4 free pool exhaustion... > - this implies that there will be a continuing need for IPv4 > addresses after the > RIR pool has exhausted within this industry. Okay, so the demand for attachment will continue unabated, and technically that demand can only be satisfied, directly or indirectly, with IPv4 resources -- because IPv6 is not backwards compatible "on the wire", and because all of the edge resources of interest to current and future end users are now attached via the IPv4 resources of incumbent operators. > - It is also observed that there is considerable diversity in the > current > value of "use" of addresses today, and it is likely that this broad > diversity of exploitative value of addresses will persist. That's an interesting way to phrase things! We are confronting a zero sum game, in which "low value" resources that cannot justify the value of their attachment will go under so that more valuable resources may be attached. Actually, since that value calculus will be expressed in terms of willingness to pay, perhaps we should restate in clearer terms: big money players will buy out small money players, until an equilibrium has been reached where no player is so small that it can be bought out by another. > It appears that in this case once the existing supply mechanisms > have been exhausted, then the supply mechanisms to meet the > continued demand will come from existing holders of address space. > Its also pretty clear that such supply > mechanisms will not meet every last possible demand, so a regime of > scarcity-based > redistribution will eventuate to equilibriate supply and demand. In > such scarcity-based > redistribution mechanisms, those applications that place a higher > exploitative value > on IPv4 addresses would be capable of making a case to transfer > addresses from > an existing address holder who has a lower value associated with the > addresses. So far I think I summarized pretty accurately... if somewhat less clinically. > This equilibriation is conventionally based on establishing a > valuation point whereby > the residual demand levels can be met in that those demands where > the exploitative > value is still higher that the valuation point will be satified, and > those who have > placed a lower valuation on meeting their demand will seek > substitutes. Ahh okay, so what are the available substitutes, and what is the scope of their substitutability? Would you say that an aspiring new entrant that wishes to multihome sometime in the eternal post-free pool age that is about to begin -- and actually provide normal ("full" interdomain) Internet access to customers -- would be able to go into business with IPv6 alone, or RFC 1918 space alone, without a single IPv4 address? If not -- if they will need at least that a couple of /32s to attach to other networks -- then in effect you have conceded that there is no substitute, at least for future network operators that aspire to enjoy a level of resilience, flexibility, and "autonomy" equivalent to that which has been available to every network operator to date. What would have to change in order for the possibility of "true, full" substitution to be restored, and who would have to change it? Won't that day have to wait until a preponderance of Internet resources -- users, content, services, etc. -- are "made accessible", either by being renumbered into IPv6 themselves, or via some other kind of mediated service, either of which would have to be undertaken by incumbent IPv4 operator/seller -- i.e., the same institutions that have been incentivized by the transfer market to capitalize on the value of IPv4 for as long as possible? Now why would a service provider in a hotly contested market, especially one that is otherwise "too bound to low margin commodity operations" *ever* willingly give up that market lever and revenue opportunity? Even if one attempted to, their high margin IPv4 resources would just get snapped up by a more aggressive competitor, and nothing would change. Please point out the flaws in my logic, because this sounds to me like a perfect, inescapable trap -- one that closes the industry to all but superficial/subordinate entry permanently, and guarantees that the transition to non-dependence on IPv4 could take forever, literally. > Now all of this would be irrelevant if we were still in an environment > of abundance - all those who had a case for addresses, whatever the > exploitative value > each party places on the addresses, could be met, in which case you > get back > to the proposition that the only residual 'value' of a particular > address over any other > is the relative ease with which it is routed - which is what Yakov's > slide pack is effectively > saying. I think I understand your point, but if I do this is just a restatement of an old economics joke. Econ prof and student walking across the campus, both look down and see a $20 bill as they step on/over it. Prof never breaks stride, student asks "But Professor, why didn't you pick up the money?" Professor says, "I didn't bother because it couldn't have been there -- if it was, somebody else would have already picked it up!" So, the value of routes will be attested to by the fact of their being routed, and the nonvalue of nonroutes will be equally self-evident... > But this is all basic theory of markets, isn't it Tom. I don't I've > said a single thing > about market valuation, exploitative values and substitution that > isn't in any > standard text on the theory of markets! I should have read more of standard texts I guess. However, I never found that they had much relevance at all in this sector. In this sector, however, I have seen countless examples of critical, non-substitutable, bottleneck inputs being strategically rationed by incumbents, with the sublimely rational goal of precluding any/all competition that did not guarantee them the lion's share of any increased revenue or market growth that anyone realized as a result. An equal share of a bigger pie is never enough -- that's just economic rationality at work. > Is routing so fragile that addresses cannot move at all? I think not. > > Is IPv6 so busted and NATs just so unworkable that any form of > substitution is completely > untenable? I think not. I eagerly await clarification in this substitutability question -- because if I'm wrong, perhaps things are not so dire. > Are there addresses out there that are unused, or used in contexts > where subtitution may > take place? I believe so. Lately I hear this as justification for the assumption that all "underutilized" IPv4 will be consolidated in 1-2 years post-runout. So let's just stipulate this, and focus on what happens after that. > So I'm left with a question or two back to Tom via this list: Why do > you think that in this > case the conventional mechanisms that we've use explicitly or > implicitly to equilibriate demand, supply and substitution within > human activity sectors for, oh, a millenium or five, in times of > scarcity of supply and competing demands have to be > suspended and some magic substituted in its place just for IPv4 > addresses? Actually, there is an important class of finite resources for which the "conventional mechanisms" were never applied, precisely because the resources in question played an integral role in facilitating all of the other exchanges in the economy, helping to keep them "efficient" with low transaction costs, etc. These resources were also generally held in escrow by a central authority, which was the only authorized recipient of freshly discovered stocks of the resource, and also the only authorized top-level source from which others could secure this resource. Like all growing systems, these eventually hit a ceiling with their finite critical resource also, and had to transition to a different quantity-unconstrained substitute -- episodes which may provide some useful insights for our own predicament. I can tell the full story later if there is interest, but suffice it to say that there are other relevant precedents and mechanisms. > And the second question is: Equally I'm really unclear what you see > as the alternative > framework to use here to address the situation. Do you believe that > there are credible > alternative approaches that do not involve the movement of IPv4 > addresses between > entities beside the "lets do a complete IPv6 transition in the next > 24 months across > the entire globe" approach? Since that's not a credible alternative either, let's hope so! Actually I do have an idea, but it would require that the tempo and discomfort of the transition to be distributed in direct rather than inverse proportion to the stakes and capability of the parties involved. In other words, it would require that the largest operators (i.e., those most capable of transitioning, but also of postponing their own pain for as long as possible -- and also of directly causing the discomfort experienced by others to endure for as long as possible) to start their own (perhaps very very gradual) transition, sooner rather than later. Small and medium-sized operators too, the point being to get everyone on a transparent -- not necessarily equal or lockstep or aggressive, just transparently "confidence inspiring" -- timetable, at the end of which IPv4/IPv6 substitutability concerns are eliminated for all time. Note that this envisions nothing more than a modest acceleration of what the rosy scenarios predict will be inevitable in the 2-3 years post-runout, when all "loose" IPv4 will be spoken for -- and would preempt the sort of equally plausible but gloomier outcomes that some people (not just me) have described. Again, I could provide details later if there is interest, perhaps in another forum if that would be more appropriate... TV, speaking for self only From heldal at eml.cc Sat Jun 14 08:35:40 2008 From: heldal at eml.cc (Per Heldal) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:35:40 +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: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <4B7BB59D-EAD6-44D2-8E8A-39CC5AACE017@pch.net> Message-ID: <1213425340.10574.41.camel@obelix.sandbu> On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 13:57 -0700, David Conrad wrote: > Tom, > > On Jun 13, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Tom Vest wrote: > > Perhaps Jay is like me, trying to highlight some possible > > consequences that the "governed" might wish to consider before > > consenting to go down this particular one-way street. > > The point is, we've already gone down the one-way street. The > question is whether or not we allow the RIRs to help drive or get run > over. > ?The process of governing virtually free handouts from a resource pool and the regulation of trade in resources controlled by others are incompatible activities. ?2007-08, unless it is backed by regulatory rules and means to enforce those, goes a long way towards reducing the NCC to nothing more than a rdns+whois-operator wrt IPv4. RIR's policies have so far been successful because good behaviour has been rewarded with ample supply of address-resources. Pointing fingers will not make a difference once we're out of carrots. I belive 2007-08 on its own is pointless. If there is a market there will also be someone trying to regulate it. If the RIRs want their policies to remain relevant they will have to play the game. For _example_: - Restrict buyers - Need based - No hoarding (first use what you have) - Require registered LIRs to filter disputed prefixes It will cost a lot of blood, sweat, tears and won't come cheap. The NCC may also end up having more lawyers than hostmasters, but regulation _is_ a completely different ballgame. OTOH, if we drop the ball, who do we expect to pick it up? //per From jay at nominet.org.uk Sun Jun 15 01:16:15 2008 From: jay at nominet.org.uk (Jay Daley) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:16:15 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: Forgive me if this is paraphrasing, but the main argument I've heard in favour of this proposal is "a market is coming anyway so we should act now to create one that RIPE NCC has control over". OK, maybe "control" is too strong but the sentiment is there. Examining the last part in more detail, as far as I can see, the only genuine elements of control this policy proposal gives RIPE NCC over a transfer market are the following: * The RIPE community gets to choose when the market starts. But given that this is a reactive measure this isn't much. * Policy control on allocations is enforced. But then the only policy constraint is that addresses assigned to users can be sold. I can't see that as being particularly important, after all people are selling addresses not customers. So what was a minimal policy is actually non-existent. * Addresses are only sold to existing LIRs not just anyone. * Transfers are registered with RIPE NCC (I'll put aside my scepticism on this one for now). * The receiving LIR must follow RIPE NCC policy for the addresses received. Is that really it? In which case let's call this policy change for what it really is - it is scrapping the allocation policy in order to protect the usage policy. It is not giving RIPE NCC any control over the market. All it does is retain RIPE NCC control over the use of addresses after they have left the market and go into use. Jay From shane at time-travellers.org Sun Jun 15 11:22:56 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:22:56 +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: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20080615092256.GA11147@borg.c-l-i.net> Jay, On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 12:16:15AM +0100, Jay Daley wrote: > Is that really it? In which case let's call this policy change for > what it really is - it is scrapping the allocation policy in order > to protect the usage policy. It is not giving RIPE NCC any control > over the market. All it does is retain RIPE NCC control over the > use of addresses after they have left the market and go into use. Yes, and this is a good thing. Imagine that I run a network. How do you propose I prove to my peers that I am the one, unique user of a given address prefix without the RIR system (or some other equivalent centralized accounting system) in place? -- Shane From jay at nominet.org.uk Sun Jun 15 23:56:37 2008 From: jay at nominet.org.uk (Jay Daley) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:56:37 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20080615092256.GA11147@borg.c-l-i.net> References: <20080611083133.259FD2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080615092256.GA11147@borg.c-l-i.net> Message-ID: Shane > Imagine that I run a network. How do you propose I prove to my peers > that I am the one, unique user of a given address prefix without the > RIR system (or some other equivalent centralized accounting system) in > place? Nothing I said could be taken as meaning that I do not want the RIR system to stay in place. Jay From anamatic at ripe.net Thu Jun 26 16:22:44 2008 From: anamatic at ripe.net (Ana Matic) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:22:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Message-ID: <4863A634.5060904@ripe.net> 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