From turchanyi.geza at gmail.com Sun May 4 17:59:31 2008 From: turchanyi.geza at gmail.com (Turchanyi Geza) Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 17:59:31 +0200 Subject: Fwd: [address-policy-wg] Joking follow-up, second round In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Turchanyi Geza Date: May 4, 2008 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Joking follow-up, second round To: Carlos Friacas Hello, On 5/2/08, Carlos Friacas wrote: > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > > > > 3, My suggestion was at RIPE 55 (and in my previous letter): let's do > > something similar in case of IPv6 what we have done with IPv4. "pseudo" > > dynamic IPv6! (Which is rather static, BTW.) > > > > For ISPs i'm assuming it would be easier to use static allocations, > instead of managing pools. Adding records to public databases is something > separate... Please rememeber, that I also suggested a technical solution: calculate the IPv6 addresses (subnet) from the previously allocated IPv4 address of the DSL user! That means: if we are able to allocate IPv4 addresses in "pseudo dynamic" way (wich is rather static), then we will be able to allocate IPv6 networks roughly at the same way. > 4, It is possible to allocate even /48 for every DSL users, even with the > > "pseudo" dynamic IPv6 allocation mechanism, however, why should we do > > it? If > > an "anonym" DSL user could use the same amount of the address space than > > a > > RIPE registered DSL user then nobody will register its address space in > > the > > database! > > > > You're trying to draw a line to distinguish residential users from > enterprises, is that it? No. I try to draw a line between "light" service and "serious" one (Or: between "dummies" and "experts".) > 5, The IPv6 address space is huge, however, if we do not know who is using > > it then we will loose it soon. > > > > We should always be able to link a single IPv6 address to an LIR/ISP... It won't help, unfortunately. How many people live in Holland? How many SIM card (mobile phone contract) exist? Much more, than people... > 6, Therefore my suggestion was amends previous policies (what were fine > > for > > the "experts", knowing what an IP address is and what a subnet is). > > > > > 8, I also would prefer if the "anonym" DSL users would share a visible > > different address space than the registered one. If IANA would reserve a > > prefix (preferably a /16) for the "anonym" DSL (mobile, CATV, etc) > > users, > > then the RIRs could allocate big pools from this prefix to ISPs using > > different allocation criteria than for the "registered" IPv6 networks. > > Different allocation criteria also mean: sparser usage at the beginning. If we allocate an IPv6 subnet to each and every DSL costumer, very few of them will realy use it at the beginning. However, fast IPv6 transition is not possible without this "generosity". The suggested size of the "anonym" pool is depend on the number of costumers: a /36 for very larg ISPs (more than 15 million costumers), a /40 for medium ISPs, a /44 for smaller ISP-s (less than 1 million costumers) Yes, there are ISP-s serving more than 15-16 millions costumers! This is one of the reasons why I suggested the creation of a new type of reusable addresses, the AS-local IPv4 address pool! > Back to the AS-local IPv4 address space concept: > > > > > > > > Private address space have to be unique within a routing domain, > > AS-local > > address space is unique within the given Autonomous System. (A group of > > autonomous Systems might share > > > > even this address space, but this is the exception, and not the rule.) > > > > > > > > I do think that the AS-local address pool can be created as a > > collaborative > > effort. IANA, ISPs can lease address blocks for this pool. This is not > > trading, but still a reallocation! Any reallocation policy should allow > > creation of a common address pool! > > > > > > > > It is easier to allocate "automatic" and "anonym" IPv6 network for DSL > > users > > if we have a > > > > big enough, better routable IPv4 address pool, an AS-local address pool. > > > > > > > > Please read also my proposals: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-jokes.pdf > > > > > > > > and my presentation: ( > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes-half-proposal.pdf > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Geza > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kelaidi at ote.gr Thu May 8 10:06:11 2008 From: kelaidi at ote.gr (Kelaidi Christina) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 11:06:11 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IP Addressing in a post IPv4 World - Principles - Contribution from ETNO Message-ID: Dear colleagues ETNO (European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association) is representing 40 major companies from 34 European countries, providing electronic communications networks over fixed, mobile or personal communications systems. ETNO's primary purpose is to establish a constructive dialogue between its member companies and actors involved in the development of the European Information Society to the benefit of users. More information on ETNO can be found at: www.etno.be. ETNO has prepared and presented its Common Position regarding the exhaustion of the IPv4 address space to both RIPE and ICANN (CP082 2007/10). This Expert Contribution on "IP Addressing in a post IPv4 World - Principles" provides initial thoughts to the questions asked of ETNO with regard to the principle that there marketplace should not be a determination of IPv4 address exhaustion management. ETNO continues to develop its thoughts on this issue. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues (NANI) WG Chairperson ETNO Expert Contribution IP Addressing in a post IPv4 World - Principles 1. Introduction The IP addressing community asked ETNO to make more precise and complement its position regarding the Post IPv4 World, specifically with respect to its stated principle of "no markets". That is, the time when IPv4 addresses are no longer available from the Internet's Regional Internet Registries in the way (volume and quality) they are today. It is now well-understood that the globally available pool of IPv4 addresses will be depleted at some future point. For the purposes of this paper ETNO uses the timeframe of 2010-2012. ETNO has previously urged the community to adopt a basic set of principles guiding policy development, allocation and processes regarding IP addressing in that context and that remains an important issue for ETNO. ETNO's members also feel strongly about the IP addressing environment in the period after the remaining free pool is allocated from the five RIRs. This paper identifies some assumptions regarding that environment and establishes some principles (based on those assumptions) for management of the IPv4 address space in the period following exhaustion of the free pool. In particular, it urges that due emphasis is placed on IPv6 implementation, and that fairness and transparency in any activities relating to IPv4 addresses which seek to extend the availability of IPv4 addresses is of paramount importance. 2. Assumptions ETNO asserts that the following statements are fundamental to understanding the IPv4 addressing environment in the next ten years. * 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 (e.g. the widespread deployment of NAT -- even if this could lead to extra costs and impact on the development of some services). * The only long-term solution to the "unavailability" of IPv4 addresses is the widespread adoption and deployment of IPv6 infrastructure, transport and client services. 3. ETNO Principles Underpinning any future activity with regard to the use and management of IPv4 addresses is the fact that the stability of the Internet must be maintained. In support of the above statement, and the previously stated assumptions, ETNO believes that the fundamental principles that should apply in a post-IPv4 world are fairness in access, transparency in management and that there must be no impact on existing operations and current allocations. 3.1 Identification of Legitimate Use A global mechanism for asserting the right to allocate, use and announce address blocks in the public Internet. A fundamental feature of a stable Internet in post 2012 is to be able to identify those parties who have genuine rights of use over IPv4 address prefixes. These rights of use need to be globally identified and could include the rights to allocate, use and advertise routes associated with IPv4 address prefixes. ETNO believes that a common, global approach to certifying the authentic allocation of address blocks should be adopted by the existing RIRs. Regional approaches to address block certification will be unworkable. Multiple, inconsistent approaches to address block certification would require the Internet's infrastructure to adopt more mechanisms than necessary to ensure that routing table entries were genuine and authentic. Having multiple approaches would result in unacceptable overhead in the routing infrastructure for the Internet. A global approach must be in place long before the period in which IPv4 depletion makes it significantly difficult to get address blocks from the RIRs. 3.2 Transparency in management Decisions on management (allocations and assignments must be public and transparent). To engender confidence and security post 2012 any decision regarding allocation or assignment must be done in a transparent, public way, and be consistent with policies enacted through the bottom-up processes in the RIRs. This transparency of this activity must apply globally. Any deficiencies in such policies need to be identified and action taken to ensure that they are harmonised and resolved by 2012. 3.3 Fair and Neutral Reuse Where IPv4 addresses are recovered from historic, experimental or IANA-reserved allocations, there needs to be a globally synchronized "recycling" of those blocks for Post-IPv4 allocation. Also, RIRs are further encouraged to more strictly reclaim allocated, but unused IPv4 address space. ETNO believes in a two tiered approach when it comes to IPv4 address recovery: a global IANA oriented process and regional RIR oriented processes. ETNO believes that IPv4 address space may be recovered through the examination of historic, experimental and IANA-reserved allocations. In these cases the redistribution of this address space must be fair, neutral and global. Global fairness requires that the IPv4 addresses recovered in this way are available to all users globally based on the existing justification models for allocation from IANA to RIRs. In particular, just as IANA and RIRs announce allocation of address blocks to the RIRs, so should the recovery, for future use, of address blocks be advertised. Furthermore, ETNO would like to encourage the RIRs to put still greater effort in to the reclaiming of allocated, but unused IPv4 address space. Such unused address space could e.g. result from LIRs that ceased to exist - or do not respond to any inquiries by the RIR any longer at least - or from mergers between LIRs. RIRs are also invited to seriously consider the incentives that could be provided to operating LIRs to consider returning unused address space by e.g. a rebate on the membership fees. IPv4 address space reclaimed by such means is to be put back into the allocation pool of the respective RIR to be reallocated later, according to its regular allocation policies. ETNO believes that there is a lower limit to prefix length for such recovery of IPv4 address space, though. IANA and the RIRs should make no attempt to recover for future use historic, experimental and IANA-reserved allocations where the prefix length of the allocated space is longer than the minimum allocation size for RIRs. Likewise, RIRs - in collaboration with LIRs - should make no attempt to recover (parts of) allocations where the prefix length of the allocated space is longer than the minimum allocation size for LIRs. 3.4 Self-Regulation of the Post-IPv4 Environment The allocation and of IPv4 addresses should - at all times - be guided and regulated by the bottom-up processes in place in the existing Regional Internet Registries. In a post 2012 environment, ETNO believes that the current bottom up stakeholder approach to manage the use of IPv4 public addresses should be maintained. No intervention is needed or desired by the industries who utilize and manage IPv4 addresses. This includes regional and sovereign entities as well as those treaty organizations or economic coalitions who might hope to affect IPv4 utilization for local or regional advantage - regardless of historical circumstance. 3.5 No Connection between IPv4 and IPv6 The environment for the allocation of IPv6 addressing must remain separate from the environment that manages the Post-IPv4 World. While there can be no doubt that IANA and the RIRs will continue to play an important role in both IPv4 and IPv6 in the future, ETNO believes that the environments are separate and distinguishable. In particular, decisions and policies regarding the allocation of IPv4 addresses to an organization, provider or user should not affect - in any material way - their eligibility for IPv6 address space. Similarly, an organization with IPv6 address space in the Post-IPv4 World has no inherent right to IPv4 address space - except under the existing, bottom-up processes that already guide IPv4 allocations to organizations and LIRs globally. ETNO has identified the following aspects that need to be factored into any discussion. 4. Post 2012 Environment Two broad options that might exist in the post 2012 IPv4 environment that could assist in extending the continued assignment of IPv4 addresses have been identified , namely * reclamation and reissue, and * transfer. In discussing each of the options, ETNO has considered the implications on a number of different levels. These include the entities involved such as the Local Internet registries, Regional Internet Registries etc, the legal framework, both nationally and regionally, and the interaction that may exist between these levels. Reclamation/Release and Reissue Description Reclamation/Release and reissue requires proactive action to be undertaken, either by the RIRs or by LIRs. Independent of who undertakes the action, reclamation is based upon the identification of unused IPv4 address space returning to the RIR. If proactive action is undertaken by the RIRs, then it would be reclamation, and if the action was taken by the LIRs it would be release. No assumption is made as to what size of block may be reclaimed, other then to say it is likely to be smaller then that originally allocated, and therefore no assumption regarding the value of the size reclaimed is made. Issues For the RIRs to be proactive and to treat all allocations in an equitable manner a global coordinated and consistent approach is required. It is clear that there have been variances in approaches to reclamation, across the five RIRs, in both recent and in legacy allocations. Such an approach will need for the RIRs and their membership to decide on a higher priority than today on that activity. For the LIRs, reclamation will mean allowing some form of auditing to occur, either directly with the RIR perhaps undertaking an audit of the LIR. In either case the policies applied to already allocated addresses must remain stable. There should be recognition that not all address space that remains unassigned or unannounced is free for return to the RIR. Regarding the legacy space there is an unresolved issue concerning the legal basis on which the RIRs could take action to recover unused IP addresses without any contractual arrangement with the holders. Transfer Description With the term transfer we refer to the transfer of an IPv4 address block from one entity to another under contractual agreement between the two of them. Such an entity can be both, an LIR or an address space assignee, effectively creating four potential "classes" of transfers: - From one LIR to another - From one assignee to another - From an assignee to an LIR - From an LIR to an assignee of another LIR Any such assignee could already have obtained address space from "its" LIR according to the assignment policies, or might become an entirely new assignee as a result of the transfer. Issues Future arrangements to meet on-going demand ETNO believes that the existence of transfer would be a first step to the creation of a market. This first would be a fundamental change to the manner in which IPv4 addresses are currently managed. In order to consider the impact of the creation of market for IPv4 addresses the following issues should be considered: - RIRs have been authorised to provide Internet Number resources as a result of earlier decisions and the internet community has made substantial effort to ensure appropriate bottom-up processes that are open, transparent and equitable. This approach must be maintained. - Other Internet governance organisations (IETF, ICANN) in collaboration with RIRs, ensure the robustness, security and stability of the Internet, through bottom-up processes that involve all the community. - According to the Internet Best Current Practice RFC 2008 Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies for Internet Routing it is the Internet service environment and its continued operation which gives an IP address its intrinsic value. Address allocation and management policies for IP addresses that assume unrestricted address ownership have an extremely negative impact on the scalability of the Internet routing system and are almost certain to exhaust the scalability of the Internet routing system well before the ultimate exhaustion of the IPv4 address space. The recommendation is to formally add the "address lending" policy to the set of address allocation policies of the Public Internet. It is these successful bottom-up processes that keep the Internet community from being engaged in discussions regarding intervention or new models of governmental control and therefore it is the Internet community that should take all the appropriate measures in order to adhere to the current governance model. Facilitating a market based on the principle that attaches an intrinsic "value" to an IP address would engage competition authorities, policymakers and will raise legal issues. This should be carefully considered before introducing policies that will facilitate a market. Moreover, IP addresses are allocated according to RFC 2050 Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines "Initial allocation will not be based on any current or future routing restrictions but on demonstrated requirements."... "All IP address requests are subject to audit and verification by any means deemed appropriate by the regional registry. If any assignment is found to be based on false information, the registry may invalidate the request and return the assigned addresses back to the pool of free addresses for later assignment". Based on the above principle RIPE assigns addresses based on clearly defined criteria . There are also rules for the transfer of custodianship in all RIRs. Therefore if one entity sells an IP address to another, which is completely different than existing transfer of custodianship procedures, this directly implies that the assignment made is based on information that is not valid, since the entity that is selling the IP address did not make use for a specific purpose or the purpose no longer exists. Therefore according to existing policy principles this IP address space should be returned. One could also possibly argue that a transfer is very similar to a "reclamation/release and reissue" scheme - in the latter case the gaining LIR or assignee is "just" not yet known, but still to be determined by the usual allocation and assignment policies. However, this predetermination in the case of a transfer bears the possibility that the gaining LIR or assignee is allowed to jump the queue of other LIRs (and assignees "behind" them) waiting to get a new allocation - and by such would entirely distort the well established "first come, first served and based on needs" scheme. Ultimately as the worst case, the RIRs might even lose their capability to enforce the allocation and assignment policies in case the assumption that policies will always be correctly applied by all parties becomes null and void. Based on the above considerations, ETNO has some strong concerns regarding the possible impacts of the introduction of a transfer option or an open market option. This does not mean that ETNO fails to recognise the possibility that future transactions that will involve transfers of IP addresses between entities for profit. It means that internet community will need to carefully consider the implications of assisting such a process, taking as a starting point that the Internet community wants to preserve the current internet governance bottom-up processes. If a market emerges, future developments relating to IPv4 addresses must not undermine the viability of the Internet. Evolution ETNO believes that ensuring the continued availability of IPv4 addresses needs to exist as a global approach. As part of the global approach that would need to exist, it is imperative that the coherence of the internet is maintained. Underpinning the discussions is the principle that the viability is a major cornerstone that needs to be considered in discussing the options that exist. From gert at space.net Thu May 15 11:02:29 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 11:02:29 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Feedback from the WG chairs group on 2007-01 Message-ID: <20080515090229.GO11038@Space.Net> Hi APWG folks, we have received feedback from the Working Group Chairs Collective regarding the policy process on 2007-01: --- Dear APWG Chairs, The Working Group Chairs Collective has received your request to check consensus has been reached on policy proposal 2007-01. After reviewing the discussion, we could not reach consensus that significant changes between versions 1 and 2 of the document received sufficient attention within the Review and Last Call periods, and as such the proposal may not have received the appropriate levels of scrutiny. Due to lack of consensus within the group of Working Group Chairs, we ask that the proposal is reconsidered. --- This means that the proposal needs to re-enter review phase, and we'll ask you to closely look at it, and confirm that you're expressing support for the *latest revision* of the proposal. (Please don't start a big discussion now on the outcome - the policy process says that the group of all Working Group Chairs needs to agree that the process has been followed correctly. There were serious concerns, and thus there was no consensus on this - and the only way forward is to re-enter review phase, which we'll do shortly.) As I assume that we'll reach consensus again, work on the related proposals (2006-01 for IPv6 PI etc.) will continue in parallel. regards, 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 marcoh at marcoh.net Thu May 15 14:27:01 2008 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 14:27:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <4815CF1A.7050008@inex.ie> References: <20080428120732.D90FE2F583@herring.ripe.net> <4815CF1A.7050008@inex.ie> Message-ID: <20963E01-2633-4E8A-B761-97BAF98A50C2@marcoh.net> On 28 apr 2008, at 15:20, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a one-time >> operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have >> any >> existing IPv6 holdings. > > Under current IPv6 allocation policies, I understand that the > allocation process goes like this: > > lir: please give me a /32; i intend to assign IPv6 addresses. > > ripe ncc: here you go. > > In this light, 2008-02 is a very odd solution to a problem which - > as far as I can tell - doesn't exist. But I might be tempted to > support it if the RIPE NCC were to hand out a free packet of > Smarties with every /32. Following up on last week`s meeting, it seems that the current idea is to just tell the LIR's to go to ripe and request IPv6, which isn't a real policy change and more of a marketing effort. If this is the case, I don't think this belongs in this WG and probably should be moved to NCC-services-wg, any thoughts on that one ? Groet, MarcoH From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu May 15 15:21:38 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 14:21:38 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) In-Reply-To: <20963E01-2633-4E8A-B761-97BAF98A50C2@marcoh.net> References: <20080428120732.D90FE2F583@herring.ripe.net> <4815CF1A.7050008@inex.ie> <20963E01-2633-4E8A-B761-97BAF98A50C2@marcoh.net> Message-ID: > If this is the case, I don't think this belongs in this WG > and probably should be moved to NCC-services-wg, any thoughts > on that one ? I agree. 2008-02 should be withdrawn because it is not a policy change and further discussion of promotional activities should go to either the IPv6 or the NCC Services WGs. --Michael Dillon From sander at steffann.nl Thu May 15 15:56:37 2008 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 15:56:37 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) References: <20080428120732.D90FE2F583@herring.ripe.net> <4815CF1A.7050008@inex.ie> <20963E01-2633-4E8A-B761-97BAF98A50C2@marcoh.net> Message-ID: <002d01c8b693$7fb70e10$4700a8c0@max8> Hi Michael, > I agree. 2008-02 should be withdrawn because it is not a policy change The proposer has already requested us to withdraw 2008-01 and 2008-02. Sander Steffann APWG co-chair From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Fri May 16 11:09:52 2008 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 10:09:52 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 review phase comments (was: Feedback from the WG chairs ...) In-Reply-To: <20080515090229.GO11038@Space.Net> References: <20080515090229.GO11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: <16E65B51-74F4-4444-9B90-8D3AE28C35CF@ucd.ie> On 15 May 2008, at 10:02, Gert Doering wrote: > This means that the proposal needs to re-enter review phase, and we'll > ask you to closely look at it, and confirm that you're expressing > support for the *latest revision* of the proposal. I have just now, as requested, looked closely at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft.html, which I understand to be the latest revision of the proposal, and have the following comments to make as part of the re-entered review phase. These comments include (a) a request for information from RIPE-NCC and (b) a proposal to remove certain text from the draft. 6.9 Anycasting TLD Nameservers Fine. 9.0 PA vs. PI Address Space 3 proposed changes: 1/3: PI concept, distinction from PA, contract options: fine; 2/3: Suggested warning on potential disadvantages of PI: fine; 3/3: Retroactive application of new policy to existing non-PA: problematic. It is certainly necessary to make explicit that the proposed new policy applies to existing PI assignments, and thus modifies the contractual conditions supporting any such assignment. I expect that existing contractual arrangements actually support fair and reasonable modifications to the terms and conditions involved. It would be useful to have confirmation from RIPE-NCC that this is indeed the case. I doubt that RIPE-NCC has formal competence to modify the terms and conditions (whatever they might be!) under which ERX assignments were made. It is therefore most likely futile for the RIPE community to request any such action of RIPE-NCC. I propose removing the text "including address space marked as Early Registration (ERX)". I see no other problem with this proposed change. By the way, and off-topic for the present discussion, I would see it as a useful exercise to encourage holders of ERX resources to "regularize" their position, perhaps along the lines of ARIN's "Legacy Registration Services Agreement". Best regards, Niall O'Reilly University College Dublin IT Services PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9 -------------- 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 anamatic at ripe.net Fri May 16 11:41:35 2008 From: anamatic at ripe.net (Ana Matic) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 11:41:35 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Name of Proposer) Message-ID: <20080516094135.435132F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Name of Proposer Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2008-01 has been withdrawn. After RIPE 56 the proposer decided to withdraw this proposal due to insufficient support for it. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-01.html Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC From anamatic at ripe.net Fri May 16 11:59:48 2008 From: anamatic at ripe.net (Ana Matic) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 11:59:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-02 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR) Message-ID: <20080516095948.D6C5E2F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2008-02 Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2008-02 has been withdrawn. After RIPE 56 the proposer decided to withdraw this proposal due to insufficient support for it. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Tue May 20 22:00:56 2008 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 20:00:56 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 review phase comments In-Reply-To: <16E65B51-74F4-4444-9B90-8D3AE28C35CF@ucd.ie> References: <20080515090229.GO11038@Space.Net> <16E65B51-74F4-4444-9B90-8D3AE28C35CF@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <48332DF8.2080909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Hi Niall, community, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > > On 15 May 2008, at 10:02, Gert Doering wrote: > >> This means that the proposal needs to re-enter review phase, and we'll >> ask you to closely look at it, and confirm that you're expressing >> support for the *latest revision* of the proposal. I am trying to do that once again and I am *not* able to express my support for the latest (Version 2) revision of the proposal and the draft doc. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft.html , for a couple of reasons: - the headline of this draft is "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" which for me implies that it is supposed to apply to address space distributed as a service by the RIPE NCC to its Service Region. This seems to be confirmed (in Section 9.0) by the paragraph headline of "End Users requesting PI space should be given this or a similar warning:" Looking at the (1st block of) NEW TEXT talking about PI and routability seems pretty reasonable and consistent. However, looking at the next block of text labelled ADDITION TO DOCUMENT which starts to - out of context - talk about ERX (to me) seems grossly illogical and structurally misplaced. - trying to sneak in a retro-active requirement into a policy which would require the NCC to impose usage limitations, contractual work or new fees onto *legitimate* holders of legacy resources without, at the same time, offering some reasonable incentive for the resource holders to agree and comply, poses the risk of damaging the perception of the RIPE NCC as a professional, impartial and "reasonable" organisation trying to support the community. I thus propose to remove this additional text block (which seems to have been introduced without much review and consistency checking when producing Version 2). At the same time I'd like to explicitely voice support for the goal of - eventually - trying to bring the legacy resource holders (including AS numbers) under the umbrella of the RIPE NCC's regular resource management environment. The most reasonable point in time to do that seems to be the availability of the RPKI Service (in production quality) and maybe by way of a separate policy proposal - if a new policy is necessary at all at that point in time, rather than simply a new service offer. Regards, Wilfried. From gert at space.net Tue May 20 22:59:15 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 22:59:15 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 review phase comments In-Reply-To: <48332DF8.2080909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <20080515090229.GO11038@Space.Net> <16E65B51-74F4-4444-9B90-8D3AE28C35CF@ucd.ie> <48332DF8.2080909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20080520205914.GF11038@Space.Net> Hi, this discussion is starting a bit premature... On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 08:00:56PM +0000, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Niall O'Reilly wrote: > > On 15 May 2008, at 10:02, Gert Doering wrote: > > > >> This means that the proposal needs to re-enter review phase, and we'll > >> ask you to closely look at it, and confirm that you're expressing > >> support for the *latest revision* of the proposal. Maybe my wording wasn't clear enough here. We are working on a new version of the proposal right now, and when it's done, "we'll ask you to closely look at it ". [..] > - the headline of this draft is > > "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment > Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" > > which for me implies that it is supposed to apply to address space > distributed as a service by the RIPE NCC to its Service Region. > > This seems to be confirmed (in Section 9.0) by the paragraph headline of > > "End Users requesting PI space should be given this or a similar warning:" > > Looking at the (1st block of) NEW TEXT talking about PI and routability > seems pretty reasonable and consistent. > > However, looking at the next block of text labelled ADDITION TO DOCUMENT > which starts to - out of context - talk about ERX (to me) seems grossly > illogical and structurally misplaced. This block has nothing to do whatsoever with the warning message - which is why it's in a *separate* text box, and not included in the "changed text for the warning message" box. Since this seems to be easy to misunderstand, we're currently reworking the structure of the change to make it more obvious that the "ADDITION TO DOCUMENT" block is *not* part of the "warning message to PI requestors", but of the general PI section. Independent of this, the ERX part will be moved to a separate policy proposal (see below). > - trying to sneak in a retro-active requirement into a policy which would > require the NCC to impose usage limitations, contractual work or new fees > onto *legitimate* holders of legacy resources without, at the same time, > offering some reasonable incentive for the resource holders to agree and > comply, poses the risk of damaging the perception of the RIPE NCC as a > professional, impartial and "reasonable" organisation trying to support > the community. We've discussed this on RIPE55, and got *very* explicit support from the room that "yes, this needs to apply for existing assignments as well" (that was the part about the "old farts", remember?). Please read it up in the minutes. There is absolutely nothing "sneaky" here. The RIPE NCC management has voiced support for this as well, and not expressed any concerns about this part of the proposal. The "missing" incentive for the resource holders could be, among others, better quality of the data in the RIPE database, and thus less hijacking, less troubles with upstream routing, etc. - and in the long run, resource certificates, of course. I agree that we cannot do that for ERX space, because this is space that was never handed out by the NCC, and no ties to the NCC exist. So the plan is to put up a separate policy proposal for ERX ("if you want service from the NCC, like a resource certificate, the ERX space needs to be changed to normal PI space, with all accompanying obligations"). 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 Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Tue May 20 23:43:40 2008 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 21:43:40 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 review phase comments In-Reply-To: <20080520205914.GF11038@Space.Net> References: <20080515090229.GO11038@Space.Net> <16E65B51-74F4-4444-9B90-8D3AE28C35CF@ucd.ie> <48332DF8.2080909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <20080520205914.GF11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4833460C.3080405@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > this discussion is starting a bit premature... Ah, sorry.... [...] > Independent of this, the ERX part will be moved to a separate policy > proposal (see below). Very good. [...] > The "missing" incentive for the resource holders could be, among others, > better quality of the data in the RIPE database, and thus less hijacking, > less troubles with upstream routing, etc. Those are pretty weak ones as all of this is working already, and routing for ERX space in the general interest of the Internet, but > - and in the long run, resource certificates, of course. this sh|could be The Real Thing[TM]. There may be a couple of other handles, like management of reverse delegation? This clearly is a service offered by the RIPE NCC, and with cost involved. > I agree that we cannot do that for ERX space, because this is space that > was never handed out by the NCC, and no ties to the NCC exist. So the > plan is to put up a separate policy proposal for ERX ("if you want > service from the NCC, like a resource certificate, the ERX space needs > to be changed to normal PI space, with all accompanying obligations"). Fully supported. Although, at the same time, I am disappointed that we are still waiting for the draft contract and the discussion of the type or the form of new membership, like fees and voting rights?! Which, by the way, also holds true for the "genuine" PI space part of the game ;-) > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair Wilfried. From sander at steffann.nl Wed May 21 09:33:25 2008 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 09:33:25 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 review phase comments References: <20080515090229.GO11038@Space.Net> <16E65B51-74F4-4444-9B90-8D3AE28C35CF@ucd.ie> <48332DF8.2080909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <20080520205914.GF11038@Space.Net> <4833460C.3080405@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <001d01c8bb14$f5b2b990$4700a8c0@max8> Hello Wilfried, > Although, at the same time, I am disappointed that we are still waiting > for the draft contract and the discussion of the type or the form of new > membership, like fees and voting rights?! This part is not for the address policy working group to decide. The idea is that there will be a new class of membership, but the details are for the NCC and its members to decide. - Sander From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Wed May 21 13:12:31 2008 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 12:12:31 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 review phase comments In-Reply-To: <20080520205914.GF11038@Space.Net> References: <20080515090229.GO11038@Space.Net> <16E65B51-74F4-4444-9B90-8D3AE28C35CF@ucd.ie> <48332DF8.2080909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <20080520205914.GF11038@Space.Net> Message-ID: On 20 May 2008, at 21:59, Gert Doering wrote: > this discussion is starting a bit premature... Sorry from me too. I was trying to avoid being late. 8-) > Maybe my wording wasn't clear enough here. We are working on a new > version > of the proposal right now, and when it's done, "we'll ask you to > closely > look at it ". OK, fine! /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 kelaidi at ote.gr Mon May 26 09:49:13 2008 From: kelaidi at ote.gr (Kelaidi Christina) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:49:13 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 review phase comments Message-ID: Dear colleagues ETNO's recently submitted a contribution, titled "IP Addressing in a post IPv4 World-Principles", to the RIPE address-policy-wg mailing list (available also to the ETNO web site, http://www.etno.be/Default.aspx?tabid=2058). This contribution provides an analysis on why, according to ETNO Members, any emerging marketplace should not determine IPv4 address exhaustion management. Quoting some basic arguments from the abovementioned contribution, ETNO believes that it is the successful bottom-up processes that keep the Internet community from being engaged in discussions regarding intervention or new models of governmental control and therefore it is the Internet community that should take all the appropriate measures in order to adhere to the current governance model. Facilitating a market based on the principle that attaches an intrinsic "value" to an IP address would engage competition authorities, policymakers and will raise legal issues. This should be carefully considered before introducing policies that will facilitate a market. Therefore, ETNO has some strong concerns regarding the possible impacts of the introduction of a transfer option or an open market option. This does not mean that ETNO fails to recognise the possibility that future transactions that will involve transfers of IP addresses between entities for profit. It means that internet community will need to carefully consider the implications of assisting such a process, taking as a starting point that the Internet community wants to preserve the current internet governance bottom-up processes. If a market emerges, future developments relating to IPv4 addresses must not undermine the viability of the Internet. Therefore based on the above, ETNO members could not support the 2007-08 Policy Proposal, Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues WG. From Klaus.Kinder at telekom.de Tue May 27 11:40:35 2008 From: Klaus.Kinder at telekom.de (Kinder, Klaus) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 11:40:35 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 review phase comments Message-ID: <7D240B9A5EA21A4B99A84011CCC2712107AFFEC8@S4DE9JSAAHX.nord.t-com.de> Hello, > From: "Kelaidi Christina" kelaidi at localhost > Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:49:13 +0300 >From the LIR|de.telekom|point of view and as a member from ETNO, we explicitly endorse this position. Klaus Kinder Deutsche Telekom Technischer Service Central Services Local Internet Registry|de.telekom| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nick at inex.ie Mon May 26 19:16:04 2008 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 18:16:04 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 review phase comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <483AF054.1040308@inex.ie> > Quoting some basic arguments from the abovementioned contribution, ETNO > believes that it is the successful bottom-up processes that keep the > Internet community from being engaged in discussions regarding > intervention or new models of governmental control and therefore it is > the Internet community that should take all the appropriate measures in > order to adhere to the current governance model. Facilitating a market > based on the principle that attaches an intrinsic "value" to an IP > address would engage competition authorities, policymakers and will > raise legal issues. This should be carefully considered before > introducing policies that will facilitate a market. Therefore, ETNO has > some strong concerns regarding the possible impacts of the introduction > of a transfer option or an open market option. This does not mean that > ETNO fails to recognise the possibility that future transactions that > will involve transfers of IP addresses between entities for profit. It > means that internet community will need to carefully consider the > implications of assisting such a process, taking as a starting point > that the Internet community wants to preserve the current internet > governance bottom-up processes. If a market emerges, future developments > relating to IPv4 addresses must not undermine the viability of the > Internet. Christina, You're not proposing much of an alternative here, other than hoping that things are just going to sort-of carry on the way they always have. It would be nice to believe that this was going to happen, but personally, I don't view this as a realistic potential future. ETNO is correct in identifying that a market based addressing approach will attract lots of attention from forces which are - to be frank - unwanted and largely unhelpful. However, it must also be realised that an IP address market already exists where you can buy and sell IPv4 address space. And in a world where there is no longer a free supply of nearly zero-cost address space, this market will take off at high speed, regardless of whether or not the RIRs choose to engage in it. If they choose not to, I would argue that the effects on the marketplace will be significantly worse than if they choose to join and continue to play their part as registrars of data. Chaos is the most likely outcome if they are not given a mandate to be involved; RIRs will not have the community mandate to ensure that their databases of address holders continue to correspond with the ultimate users of the address space. This will lead to significant problems in many areas, not least technical and legal. Unless the RIRs are allowed to adapt to the de-facto methods of managing address space, they will become an irrelevant part of ipv4 address management, and we will see significantly more regulatory, political and legal interest being expressed than if they are given a mandate to facilitate address transfer. I don't think that there are very many people who really want an address space market; however, given the circumstances, it would seem to me and many others that it is the least bad of a small number of problematic ways of dealing with a severe constriction of IPv4 address space supply. > Therefore based on the above, ETNO members could not support the 2007-08 > Policy Proposal, Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources. Christina, your email above has stated ETNO's position but nothing more. However, it is clear that ETNO has debated this issue in some depth. It would be helpful to this process if we could understand your reasoning more. In the interests of helping people in the RIPE community to understand the ETNO position, would it be possible for you to give details about why you have taken this position? Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick at inex.ie From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue May 27 12:39:12 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 11:39:12 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 review phase comments In-Reply-To: <483AF054.1040308@inex.ie> References: <483AF054.1040308@inex.ie> Message-ID: > You're not proposing much of an alternative here, other than > hoping that things are just going to sort-of carry on the way > they always have. It would be nice to believe that this was > going to happen, but personally, I don't view this as a > realistic potential future. I don't think anybody believes that things are always going to be the same. The point that I think ETNO is trying to stress is that RIPE should be careful to not extend its scope into areas that are normally the responsibility of government regulators and this includes market regulators. I think that we all want RIPE to continue the process of industry self regulation in IP addressing because the IPv4 shortage is just a temporary problem that will go away when IPv6 is widely deployed. Rather than focus on a shortage problem which RIPE can *NOT* solve, we should focus on other issues where RIPE is a valuable forum. > ETNO is correct in identifying that a market based addressing > approach will attract lots of attention from forces which are > - to be frank - unwanted and largely unhelpful. However, it > must also be realised that an IP address market already > exists where you can buy and sell IPv4 address space. And in > a world where there is no longer a free supply of nearly > zero-cost address space, this market will take off at high > speed, regardless of whether or not the RIRs choose to engage in it. This proposal enables the sale of IP addresses as property, even though it keeps the financial details secret. This legitimizes the position that IP addresses, and phone numbers are assests which can be bought and sold. But the policy as written places restrictions on the market which cannot be justified. In the first place, if IP addresses are an asset, then RIPE has no authority to say who can buy or sell these assets. Such restrictions can only be made by governments, and RIPE does not have that authority. I would rather see RIPE reject such proposals because it reinforces the message that IP addresses are not property which can be bought and sold. > Chaos is the most likely outcome if they are not given > a mandate to be involved; RIRs will not have the community > mandate to ensure that their databases of address holders > continue to correspond with the ultimate users of the address > space. The only way that this chaotic situation could come to pass would be if many ISPs of a significant size, started to buy and sell IP addresses. ETNO contains many of the largest ISPs in Europe and they say that they will not do this. In addition, we are entering a period of IPv4 address shortage which means that most ISPs of any size will not have any IP addresses to sell unless they can get a price significantly above what they can earn by using the IP addresses to sell services. These are very real forces and they serve to limit chaos. I would prefer for RIPE to wait and see if there is increasing evidence of descent into chaos before taking actions like 2007-08. > Unless the RIRs are allowed > to adapt to the de-facto methods of managing address space, > they will become an irrelevant part of ipv4 address > management, Adaptation is good, just not in the directions defined by 2007-08. For instance, 2007-08 allows the addresses to be transferred without disclosure of any of the details of the transaction, for instance price paid. This lack of transparency would lead to addressing cartels and is not consistent with the principles of OPEN self regulation. > I don't think that there are very many people who really want > an address space market; however, given the circumstances, it > would seem to me and many others that it is the least bad of > a small number of problematic ways of dealing with a severe > constriction of IPv4 address space supply. Seems to me that the least bad way is to deploy IPv6. There are at least two or three years left to do this, and it does not require replacing very much infrastructure. No need to panic. --Michael Dillon From nigel at titley.com Tue May 27 16:24:30 2008 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 15:24:30 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE NCC Board and the PDP Was: 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20080527140716.GH439@reiftel.karrenberg.net> References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> <47E1558C.9090608@titley.com> <20080527140716.GH439@reiftel.karrenberg.net> Message-ID: <483C199E.5080407@titley.com> Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > [speaking as a private citizen and not as RIPE NCC staffer] > > In my reality that is not quite right and it is important to be clear: > > The policies we re discussing are made by RIPE using its PDP which is > described in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-428.html . > > There is no direct involvement of the RIPE NCC other than providing support. > > There is no involvement of the RIPE NCC board other than its members ability > to participate in a personal capacity. > Yes, you are quite right and I should have been clearer in my response. The RIPE NCC board only has involvement once the RIPE NCC is asked to implement policy. However the board has a duty to feed back through the PDP during the development process if it feels that a policy, which is currently under development may not be implementable by the RIPE NCC for whatever reason. We have seen the recent consequences of this duty being neglected. I'm not entirely sure through what formal channel this feedback should come (if indeed there is a formal channel), but I have taken the step of making sure that future board meetings should include a section on current policies under development so that we can spot them coming. Hope this clarifies my previous remarks Nigel From Klaus.Kinder at telekom.de Tue May 27 10:43:10 2008 From: Klaus.Kinder at telekom.de (Kinder, Klaus) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 10:43:10 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 review phase comments Message-ID: <7D240B9A5EA21A4B99A84011CCC2712107AFFE3E@S4DE9JSAAHX.nord.t-com.de> Hello, > From: "Kelaidi Christina" kelaidi at localhost > Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:49:13 +0300 >From the LIR|de.telekom|point of view and as a member from ETNO, we explicitly endorse this position. Klaus Kinder Deutsche Telekom Technischer Service Central Services Local Internet Registry|de.telekom| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Tue May 27 16:07:16 2008 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:07:16 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE NCC Board and the PDP Was: 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <47E1558C.9090608@titley.com> References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> <47E1558C.9090608@titley.com> Message-ID: <20080527140716.GH439@reiftel.karrenberg.net> On 19.03 18:03, Nigel Titley wrote: > michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > >>One thing I'm not sure about is this: > >> > >> 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. > >> > > > >Interesting. Since this policy seems to be saying that it will be > >legitimate for LIRs to trade addresse blocks, has anyone investigated > >whether or not restrictions, such as those above, would be considered > >illegal restraint of trade? > > > Ultimate acceptance of any policy rests with the RIPE NCC board, who > would be consulting counsel on this one, I suspect. Since no one on this > list is a lawyer, could we avoid uninformed legal speculation? [speaking as a private citizen and not as RIPE NCC staffer] In my reality that is not quite right and it is important to be clear: The policies we re discussing are made by RIPE using its PDP which is described in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-428.html . There is no direct involvement of the RIPE NCC other than providing support. There is no involvement of the RIPE NCC board other than its members ability to participate in a personal capacity. Once a policy is made which involves implementation by the RIPE NCC, the RIPE NCC and its board have the reponsibility for the implementation and the responsibility to review whether he policy can be implemented in terms of operational resources or other significant concerns such as a policiy's legality or the possibiliy of successful litigation against the RIPE NCC etc. pp. Some recent examples have shown that we may want to amend the PDP to eplicitly include legal and operational reviews by the RIPE NCC at appropriate stages in order to check these things early on rather than after the fact. Personally I am in favour of that. Let us learn the useful things from ARIN's PDP. ;-) However we should be clear that the purview of the RIPE NCC board is the RIPE NCC and that does not include policy development wihtin RIPE. Daniel From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Tue May 27 18:03:37 2008 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:03:37 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE NCC Board and the PDP Was: 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <483C199E.5080407@titley.com> References: <20080318170154.C092C2F583@herring.ripe.net> <20080319135645.GD21871@borg.c-l-i.net> <47E1558C.9090608@titley.com> <20080527140716.GH439@reiftel.karrenberg.net> <483C199E.5080407@titley.com> Message-ID: <20080527160336.GA438@reiftel.karrenberg.net> On 27.05 15:24, Nigel Titley wrote: > ... > I'm not entirely sure through what formal channel this feedback should > come (if indeed there is a formal channel), but I have taken the step of > making sure that future board meetings should include a section on > current policies under development so that we can spot them coming. That is very appropriate. My suggestion for the procedureal channel is to strengthen the operational reviews during the discussion and review phase in the PDP and making them explicit in the PDP document. There should be both an operational and a legal review by the RIPE NCC. The legal review could be defined broader than just looking at the impact on the RIPE NCC. ARIN's review procedures could be considered as examples for this. I proposed this at the WG chairs meeting in Berlin, but I am afraid this may have been drowned by the concrete matter at hand. > Hope this clarifies my previous remarks It indeed does. I knew what you meant but I found it important to prevent any mis-interpretations. Daniel From nick at inex.ie Wed May 28 12:55:11 2008 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:55:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 review phase comments In-Reply-To: References: <483AF054.1040308@inex.ie> Message-ID: <483D3A0F.9000507@inex.ie> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > this includes market regulators. I think that we all want RIPE > to continue the process of industry self regulation in IP addressing > because the IPv4 shortage is just a temporary problem that will > go away when IPv6 is widely deployed. With respect, there is no guarantee that ipv6 will be taken up as a solution to the ipv4 depletion problem. It is certainly one option, but there are others such as provider NAT and LISP. Who knows, there may be multiple solutions deployed? In fact, it's quite likely that there will be many different approaches taken. > This proposal enables the sale of IP addresses as property, > even though it keeps the financial details secret. This will happen regardless of whether the RIRs get involved or not. > The only way that this chaotic situation could come to pass would > be if many ISPs of a significant size, started to buy and sell > IP addresses. ETNO contains many of the largest ISPs in Europe > and they say that they will not do this. Michael, I really don't believe for a moment that ETNO members are going to keep away from the IPv4 market when it comes into being, regardless of the current ETNO position in these times of plenty. While you and other people like you and me are - to one degree or another - against the whole notion of a market, if a shortage of IPv4 address space starts taking its toll on a company's financials, the decision to purchase more address space will be taken away from the technical departments and assumed by the business development departments (and perhaps your boards of management/directors) in your companies. > In addition, we are > entering a period of IPv4 address shortage which means that most > ISPs of any size will not have any IP addresses to sell unless > they can get a price significantly above what they can earn by > using the IP addresses to sell services. These are very real > forces and they serve to limit chaos. I would prefer for RIPE > to wait and see if there is increasing evidence of descent into > chaos before taking actions like 2007-08. By the time chaos arrives, it will be too late. Rescuing oneself retroactively from chaos is much more difficult than taking a more proactive approach from the beginning. > Adaptation is good, just not in the directions defined by > 2007-08. For instance, 2007-08 allows the addresses to be > transferred without disclosure of any of the details of the > transaction, for instance price paid. This lack of transparency > would lead to addressing cartels and is not consistent with > the principles of OPEN self regulation. I would see it as likely that most ipv4 address space will be auctioned using either a highest bid (i.e. most fully open auctions) or a perturbed second highest bid approach (i.e. the ebay auction method) And again, whether or not the prices are disclosed is completely orthogonal to whether the RIRs get involved. >> I don't think that there are very many people who really want >> an address space market; however, given the circumstances, it >> would seem to me and many others that it is the least bad of >> a small number of problematic ways of dealing with a severe >> constriction of IPv4 address space supply. > > Seems to me that the least bad way is to deploy IPv6. There are > at least two or three years left to do this, and it does not require > replacing very much infrastructure. No need to panic. This is off-topic for APWG, but IPv6 deployment will almost certainly not happen until the latest possible moment. And there are other more important and more costly issues associated with deploying an ipv6 internet than just rolling out new hardware and coming up with an addressing plan. Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick at inex.ie From marc.neuckens at belgacom.be Thu May 29 01:04:54 2008 From: marc.neuckens at belgacom.be (marc.neuckens at belgacom.be) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 01:04:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 review phase comments In-Reply-To: <483D3A0F.9000507@inex.ie> References: <483AF054.1040308@inex.ie> <483D3A0F.9000507@inex.ie> Message-ID: <3A97823F5F7F184E919CB947C7FBAAF00391D98B@AE0008.BGC.NET> Nick, Even if there will be a market to buy Ipv4 address space, it will not be able to satisfy the address needs of the bigger broadband providers. (ETNO or other) Hoping that a IPv4 maket will give you the required addresses to continue to assign an Ipv4 address to each (new) individual subscriber is wishfull thinking. So we (as an industry) have to find a cost effective solution to consume (much) less than 1 IPv4 address per broadband user between now and exhaustion time. (Ipv6 or NAT or other) Migrating existing customers to a new solution/service is not easy or cheap (especially if they have to replace their CPE). I suppose that this solution (IPv6) will be apllied first to the growth (new users) and later to migrate existing users. Marc > > The only way that this chaotic situation could come to pass > would be > > if many ISPs of a significant size, started to buy and sell IP > > addresses. ETNO contains many of the largest ISPs in Europe > and they > > say that they will not do this. > > Michael, I really don't believe for a moment that ETNO > members are going to keep away from the IPv4 market when it > comes into being, regardless of the current ETNO position in > these times of plenty. While you and other people like you > and me are - to one degree or another - against the whole > notion of a market, if a shortage of IPv4 address space > starts taking its toll on a company's financials, the > decision to purchase more address space will be taken away > from the technical departments and assumed by the business > development departments (and perhaps your boards of > management/directors) in your companies. __________________________________________________ Marc Neuckens belgacom Manager Expert Center IP & Internet ITN/IRO/Remote Network Operations(RNO)/ECI Lebeaustraat 2 B-1000 Brussel Tel.: +32-2-514.43.66 E-mail: __________________________________________________ **** DISCLAIMER **** http://www.belgacom.be/maildisclaimer From tim.streater at dante.org.uk Thu May 29 11:06:22 2008 From: tim.streater at dante.org.uk (Tim Streater) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 10:06:22 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 review phase comments In-Reply-To: <3A97823F5F7F184E919CB947C7FBAAF00391D98B@AE0008.BGC.NET> References: <483AF054.1040308@inex.ie> <483D3A0F.9000507@inex.ie> <3A97823F5F7F184E919CB947C7FBAAF00391D98B@AE0008.BGC.NET> Message-ID: At 00:04 29/05/2008, marc.neuckens at belgacom.be wrote: >Nick, > >Even if there will be a market to buy Ipv4 address space, it will not be >able to satisfy the address needs of the bigger broadband providers. >(ETNO or other) >Hoping that a IPv4 maket will give you the required addresses to >continue to assign an Ipv4 address to each (new) individual subscriber >is wishfull thinking. > >So we (as an industry) have to find a cost effective solution to consume >(much) less than 1 IPv4 address per broadband user between now and >exhaustion time. (Ipv6 or NAT or other) > >Migrating existing customers to a new solution/service is not easy or >cheap (especially if they have to replace their CPE). >I suppose that this solution (IPv6) will be apllied first to the growth >(new users) and later to migrate existing users. We just finished implementing a procurement for upstream. One thing we found with many of the really large ISPs is their poor support for IPv6. Few if any had IPv6 throughout their backbones. We should all be pushing our peers to provide a complete v6 service. That's the only way it's going to be available when v4 space really becomes tight. When your local provider goes rushing to his upstream, they'd better be able to provide a v6 service. ISPs could start marketing themselves as "v6 ready" rather like was done for the millenium. -- Tim From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu May 29 11:41:26 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 10:41:26 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 review phase comments In-Reply-To: References: <483AF054.1040308@inex.ie> <483D3A0F.9000507@inex.ie> <3A97823F5F7F184E919CB947C7FBAAF00391D98B@AE0008.BGC.NET> Message-ID: > We just finished implementing a procurement for upstream. One > thing we found with many of the really large ISPs is their > poor support for IPv6. Few if any had IPv6 throughout their backbones. Don't confuse poor demand with poor support. No company can afford to implement IPv6 in areas where there is no demand for it. As a result I think you will find that all the large network providers who supply IPv6 services are building out IPv6 as the demand rises. This is especially true of network using MPLS since 6PE only needs to be turned on for the few edge routers with IPv6 customers connected. > We should all be pushing our peers to provide a complete v6 > service. And those peers will ignore you since there is no business case to deploy IPv6 everywhere. > That's the only way it's going to be available when > v4 space really becomes tight. Not true. If a network provider has proven their IPv6 network design in the lab, and has a detailed plan for deployment, they will be able to get IPv6 out there in a matter of months. In addition, it makes sense to deploy the OSS and NMS support for IPv6 before turning it on in the network. This kind of activity is invisible to the outside world, but is essential in being ready for IPv4 exhaustion. > ISPs could start marketing themselves as "v6 ready" rather > like was done for the millenium. I have no doubt that we will see this in about two years, and some companies will suffer severe financial pain because they are not ready. --Michael Dillon From filiz at ripe.net Thu May 29 12:20:56 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 12:20:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-03 Review Period extended until 26 June 2008 (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space) Message-ID: <20080529102056.112F72F583@herring.ripe.net> 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 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Fri May 30 14:23:54 2008 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 13:23:54 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09 Message-ID: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> Afternoon, First off let me say that I am broadly in agreement with 2008-03, but I wished to make clear my thoughts on the incompatibility of the two proposals in the subject. I see 2008-03 as an exercise in fairness, a way to evenly distribute the last few /8s, rather than reaching a point where, particularly, AfriNIC and LACNIC need more addresses and find there to be none. However it strikes me that this policy is completely incompatible with 2007-09. 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. I realise that many people have different views of the impetus behind 2008-03, but I can only view it through my eyes, so apologies if anyone feels I'm attributing motive where there is none. Regards, Brian. From randy at psg.com Fri May 30 14:53:36 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 12:53:36 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09 In-Reply-To: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> References: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> Message-ID: <483FF8D0.7050608@psg.com> > I see 2008-03 as an exercise in fairness, a way to evenly distribute > the last few /8s, rather than reaching a point where, particularly, > AfriNIC and LACNIC need more addresses and find there to be none. more than that, it is an exercise in planning. an rir can count on having one last /8 instead of hitting the wall in surprise when their sibling got there ten minutes prior. > However it strikes me that this policy is completely incompatible > with 2007-09. this is not an accident. the author of -9 is in extreme opposition to -3 and has crafted -9 to very intentionally nullify and circumvent -3. it is notable that -3 got massive support in the arin meeting, and is generally supported in the other regions though not yet passed, and -9 has been pretty much rejected worldwide. randy From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Fri May 30 15:48:44 2008 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:48:44 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09 In-Reply-To: <483FF8D0.7050608@psg.com> References: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> <483FF8D0.7050608@psg.com> Message-ID: <484005BC.3040403@heanet.ie> Randy Bush wrote: >> I see 2008-03 as an exercise in fairness, a way to evenly distribute >> the last few /8s, rather than reaching a point where, particularly, >> AfriNIC and LACNIC need more addresses and find there to be none. > > more than that, it is an exercise in planning. an rir can count on > having one last /8 instead of hitting the wall in surprise when their > sibling got there ten minutes prior. A lesson in not writing emails when one is in a hurry somewhere. The comment on it being equally an exercise in planning was lost in the editing process. I fully agree with you. >> However it strikes me that this policy is completely incompatible >> with 2007-09. > > this is not an accident. the author of -9 is in extreme opposition to > -3 and has crafted -9 to very intentionally nullify and circumvent -3. > > it is notable that -3 got massive support in the arin meeting, and is > generally supported in the other regions though not yet passed, and -9 > has been pretty much rejected worldwide. Then I was veering into stating the obvious, but it was not something I had seen stated fully before. Thanks for the additional background. Brian. From drc at virtualized.org Fri May 30 19:45:16 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:45:16 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09 In-Reply-To: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> References: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> Message-ID: 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? Thanks, -drc From raul at lacnic.net Fri May 30 20:11:03 2008 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 15:11:03 -0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09 In-Reply-To: References: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20080530150854.047a0600@lacnic.net> At 02:45 p.m. 30/05/2008, 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? David: 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. What do you think is going to happen? Ra?l >Thanks, >-drc > > > > >-- >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 Fri May 30 20:19:06 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 11:19:06 -0700 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: <64CD0802-8133-4177-BE40-8A854559C8A2@virtualized.org> On May 30, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Raul Echeberria 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? > > David: > > 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. > > What do you think is going to happen? My understanding of the current policy regime is that IANA only allocates unused addresses. With the allocation of the last /8, IANA would be out of the IPv4 business. As such, it would be up to the RIRs involved to negotiate some "fair" solution (if any). Regards, -drc From raul at lacnic.net Fri May 30 21:25:45 2008 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 16:25:45 -0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09 In-Reply-To: <64CD0802-8133-4177-BE40-8A854559C8A2@virtualized.org> References: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> <7.0.1.0.1.20080530150854.047a0600@lacnic.net> <64CD0802-8133-4177-BE40-8A854559C8A2@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20080530162312.046ed5f8@lacnic.net> My comment was in the sense of comparing the scenario with the policy approved vs. the scenario without this policy. Of course, it is not the end of the discussion, if the policy is approved, many things will have to continue being discussed. BTW, the policy passed in LACNIC region in this meeting and now it will go through the last call for commetns and ratification process. Ra?l At 03:19 p.m. 30/05/2008, David Conrad wrote: >On May 30, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Raul Echeberria 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? >> >>David: >> >>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. >> >>What do you think is going to happen? > >My understanding of the current policy regime is that IANA only >allocates unused addresses. With the allocation of the last /8, IANA >would be out of the IPv4 business. As such, it would be up to the >RIRs involved to negotiate some "fair" solution (if any). > >Regards, >-drc > > >-- >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 Fri May 30 22:43:05 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 13:43:05 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09 In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20080530162312.046ed5f8@lacnic.net> References: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> <7.0.1.0.1.20080530150854.047a0600@lacnic.net> <64CD0802-8133-4177-BE40-8A854559C8A2@virtualized.org> <7.0.1.0.1.20080530162312.046ed5f8@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <6FC76344-A7A0-442A-8192-75ED8BFCDB7C@virtualized.org> Raul, On May 30, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Raul Echeberria wrote: > My comment was in the sense of comparing the scenario with the > policy approved vs. the scenario without this policy. The situations aren't analogous. There is only one IANA from which the RIRs obtain addresses. There are 5 RIRs and there are many organizations which obtain addresses from more than one RIR. For example, if a service provider in Europe were to establish a legal presence in (say) Namibia and request address space, what restrictions would be placed upon the announcement of that address space and how would AfriNIC enforce those restrictions (or even determine they were being violated)? The point is that I view Tony's proposal as an attempt to pragmatically deal with the reality that businesses are likely going to do what they can to ensure they meet customer requirements, regardless of the arbitrary geographical monopolies put in place when there was more address space than people could count. Questions of "fairness" get extremely complex when you get into resource scarcity (e.g., fair to whom? Will it be fair that a charity NGO based in Geneva will be unable to get any address space whereas DeBeers will be able to get as much as they desire?) and I personally think it naive to assume that the folks with money aren't going to be able to get what they want, regardless of "set asides"... Regards, -drc From raul at lacnic.net Fri May 30 22:54:20 2008 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 17:54:20 -0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09 In-Reply-To: <6FC76344-A7A0-442A-8192-75ED8BFCDB7C@virtualized.org> References: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> <7.0.1.0.1.20080530150854.047a0600@lacnic.net> <64CD0802-8133-4177-BE40-8A854559C8A2@virtualized.org> <7.0.1.0.1.20080530162312.046ed5f8@lacnic.net> <6FC76344-A7A0-442A-8192-75ED8BFCDB7C@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20080530174730.045e58c0@lacnic.net> David. You didn't answer my question. My point is that not having a policy of this kind would be very problematic at the time of allocating the last part of the pool. It is not necessarily a question of fairness but certainty in how much space the RIR will have since a certain moment to the end of IPv4 space. Is this the right policy, I don't know, the community has to say that. In ARIN and LACNIC the policy has received enough support and it is in the end of the process. I would not like to make more opinions about the policy itself until the process is finished in LACNIC region, but let me say that the rest of your arguments are based in assumptions that are not proven and are questionable. Ra?l At 05:43 p.m. 30/05/2008, David Conrad wrote: >Raul, > >On May 30, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Raul Echeberria wrote: >>My comment was in the sense of comparing the scenario with the >>policy approved vs. the scenario without this policy. > >The situations aren't analogous. There is only one IANA from which >the RIRs obtain addresses. There are 5 RIRs and there are many >organizations which obtain addresses from more than one RIR. For >example, if a service provider in Europe were to establish a legal >presence in (say) Namibia and request address space, what restrictions >would be placed upon the announcement of that address space and how >would AfriNIC enforce those restrictions (or even determine they were >being violated)? > >The point is that I view Tony's proposal as an attempt to >pragmatically deal with the reality that businesses are likely going >to do what they can to ensure they meet customer requirements, >regardless of the arbitrary geographical monopolies put in place when >there was more address space than people could count. Questions of >"fairness" get extremely complex when you get into resource scarcity >(e.g., fair to whom? Will it be fair that a charity NGO based in >Geneva will be unable to get any address space whereas DeBeers will be >able to get as much as they desire?) and I personally think it naive >to assume that the folks with money aren't going to be able to get >what they want, regardless of "set asides"... > >Regards, >-drc > > >-- >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 Sat May 31 00:31:43 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 15:31:43 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09 In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20080530174730.045e58c0@lacnic.net> References: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> <7.0.1.0.1.20080530150854.047a0600@lacnic.net> <64CD0802-8133-4177-BE40-8A854559C8A2@virtualized.org> <7.0.1.0.1.20080530162312.046ed5f8@lacnic.net> <6FC76344-A7A0-442A-8192-75ED8BFCDB7C@virtualized.org> <7.0.1.0.1.20080530174730.045e58c0@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <27575F98-FFEE-493B-AED1-7248EEC5C614@virtualized.org> Raul, On May 30, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Raul Echeberria wrote: > You didn't answer my question. Apologies, I misunderstood. > My point is that not having a policy of this kind would be very > problematic at the time of allocating the last part of the pool. It > is not necessarily a question of fairness but certainty in how much > space the RIR will have since a certain moment to the end of IPv4 > space. I was mostly commenting on assertions on Tony's policy (2007-9, in RIPEland), not on 2008-3. With respect to 2008-3, I understand the sympathize with the desire to ensure that RIRs don't get surprised at the end of the free pool. As I've stated in the past, I don't have a problem with the policy, particularly with N=1 as it is now. However, with that said, I still believe the statement: "Concerns could be raised that explicitly allowing regional policies will encourage RIR shopping. However, this should not happen if the requirements within each region is adequately reflected in each RIR's policy through PDP. RIR may also chose to add criteria to prevent LIRs from other regions submitting such requests." ignores the likely desperation people will face when we reach IPv4 runout, particularly given the mechanisms the RIRs have used in the past to encourage policy conformance (i.e., potentially refusing to allocate additional address space if policies aren't conformed to) would no longer be applicable. Regards, -drc From nick at netability.ie Sat May 31 03:01:02 2008 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 02:01:02 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09 In-Reply-To: References: <483FF1DA.70401@heanet.ie> Message-ID: <4840A34E.6070407@netability.ie> 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!" Of course, I don't want to trivialise the problem - it is rather a serious one. But fair is generally perceived as fair for someone when they benefit more from the arrangement than anyone else. Otherwise "fair" is not remotely fair. Perhaps "fair" just means what we want it to mean at a particular point in time, and from the point of view of deciding on a end-game v4 address pool distribution strategy, what we define as "fair" now may not be perceived as fair when one's local RIR runs out of addresses. I have a preference for 2007-09 over 2008-03 - at least the former has the advantage that the RIR exhaustion dates are more-or-less simultaneous worldwide, which is equally (in)equitable to all. RIR exhaustion will happen quickly and it will cause a shock, and then we'll just have to move on. As regards 2008-03, I'm not going to object to it, but I suspect it is more likely to cause protracted disgruntlement in the future until every last block of address space has been allocated from all RIRs, and this could be a matter of a year or two. But there you go: the proposal is popular in all other regions and each RIR community is fully within its remit to hoist itself on its own petard. As a side issue, it will be interesting to see in a couple of years time whether the loudest complainers (whether end-user or LIR) in the v4 exhausted world will be those who have made the most preparations for depletion. Nick