From gert at space.net Wed Oct 8 13:39:48 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:39:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20080918121902.CB5DD2F592@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080918121902.CB5DD2F592@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> Hi fellow APWG members, as the comment period for the v3 of 2007-08 is nearing its end (one week left), please send your comments about it to the list. Do you want to see this proposal implemented? Do you absolutely refuse this proposal, and any movement in that direction? Do you agree, in general, with the underlying idea, but need to see changes in the specifics before this can become policy? If there are no comments, it's a bit hard for the chairs to judge whether we have consensus or not... Gert Doering, APWG chair On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 02:19:02PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2007-08 > Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources > > Dear Colleagues, > > The text of the policy proposal 2007-08 has been revised based on the community feedback. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today. As a result a new Review Phase is set for the proposal. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html > > and the draft RIPE Document at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft2007-08-v3.html > > We encourage you to read the revised proposal and the draft document, and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 16 October 2008. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC > Policy Development Officer > -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 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 raymond.jetten at elisa.fi Wed Oct 8 14:29:24 2008 From: raymond.jetten at elisa.fi (Raymond Jetten) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:29:24 +0300 (EEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> References: <20080918121902.CB5DD2F592@herring.ripe.net> <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, Gert Doering wrote: > Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:39:48 +0200 > From: Gert Doering > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Cc: policy-announce at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published > (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) > > Hi fellow APWG members, > > as the comment period for the v3 of 2007-08 is nearing its end (one week > left), please send your comments about it to the list. > > Do you want to see this proposal implemented? > > Do you absolutely refuse this proposal, and any movement in that direction? > > Do you agree, in general, with the underlying idea, but need to see changes > in the specifics before this can become policy? Perhaps the only answer is a strong ''maybe'' (yes i am sorry). I think that the growth of the routing table and bureaucracy are arguments opposing the proposal, although it could make v4 yet last a little bit longer, but why would a LIR volenteer to return v4 space in a time when yet so many v6 compatibility issues are not yet solved. Perhaps i am wrong but i think it makes (f.ex routing) a lot more hazy.. Rgds, Ray > > If there are no comments, it's a bit hard for the chairs to judge whether > we have consensus or not... > > Gert Doering, > APWG chair > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 02:19:02PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: >> PDP Number: 2007-08 >> Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> The text of the policy proposal 2007-08 has been revised based on the community feedback. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today. As a result a new Review Phase is set for the proposal. >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html >> >> and the draft RIPE Document at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft2007-08-v3.html >> >> We encourage you to read the revised proposal and the draft document, and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 16 October 2008. >> >> Regards >> >> Filiz Yilmaz >> RIPE NCC >> Policy Development Officer >> > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 > > 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 > > ************************************************************ Raymond Jetten ??? Phone: +358 3 41024 139 Network Engineer Fax: +358 3 41024 199 Elisa Oyj / Network Management GSM: +358 45 6700 139 Hermiankatu 3A?? ?????????? raymond.jetten at elisa.fi FIN-33720, TAMPERE????????? http://www.elisa.fi ************************************************************ From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Oct 8 15:06:37 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:06:37 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> Message-ID: > as the comment period for the v3 of 2007-08 is nearing its > end (one week left), please send your comments about it to the list. 2007-08 is a dishonest policy. It enables buying and selling of IP address blocks without saying anything about how this relates to the statement in RIPE-421 (The IPv6 policy) which says: It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered freehold property. RIPE policy and practice already allows LIRs to return surplus addresses to RIPE. If an LIR finds itself in a position to have surplus IPv4 addresses (very unlikely) then why do we need to change the existing practice? I can see only one motivation for this change, and that is to allow LIRs to sell address space, and I believe that this is contrary to the interests of the entire IP networking community. 2007-08 should be rejected because no consensus has been formed and we have seen very little discussion of the points outlined by Sander Steffann in his email of June 13th. --Michael Dillon From gert at space.net Wed Oct 8 16:26:19 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:26:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20081008142619.GM28549@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 02:06:37PM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > as the comment period for the v3 of 2007-08 is nearing its > > end (one week left), please send your comments about it to the list. > > 2007-08 > is a dishonest policy. It enables buying and selling of IP address > blocks without saying anything about how this relates to the statement > in RIPE-421 (The IPv6 policy) which says: > > It is contrary to the goals of this document > and is not in the interests of the Internet > community as a whole for address space to be > considered freehold property. Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents into account? "Different circumstances". > 2007-08 should be rejected because no consensus has been formed and This is exactly the point of a "v3" of this document: take into account previous discussions and comments, and try finding a consensus on the reworked document. The argument "I reject this version because no consensus was formed on a previous version" is not a very useful contribution, in itself - if you have specific issues with *v3* (or your concerns about v1 and v2 are still un-addressed), please voice them. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Oct 8 16:44:02 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:44:02 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20081008142619.GM28549@Space.Net> Message-ID: > > It is contrary to the goals of this document > > and is not in the interests of the Internet > > community as a whole for address space to be > > considered freehold property. > > Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents > into account? "Different circumstances". Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not make any distinction between the two versions of IP. > > 2007-08 should be rejected because no consensus has been formed and > > This is exactly the point of a "v3" of this document: take > into account previous discussions and comments, and try > finding a consensus on the reworked document. > > The argument "I reject this version because no consensus was > formed on a previous version" is not a very useful > contribution, in itself - if you have specific issues with > *v3* (or your concerns about v1 and v2 are still > un-addressed), please voice them. When there is a huge lack of consensus in favour of a policy proposal, that proposal should be abandoned. It goes against consensus to continually make small changes to the proposal and extend the whole process by months or years. This does not help the stakeholders in RIPE and I do not believe that this is what people expect from the WG chairs. But you asked for specific issues. Let's start with ETNO's concerns that a transfer system cannot ensure a process that is open, transparent and equitable. By opening the door to private negotiations and agreements between LIR's, you will have destroyed the very foundation of RIPE, which is openness, transparency and fairness. Eric Schmidt feels that transfers open up more possibilities for abuse. This is what happens when you allow for secret agreements. Jay Daley says that reclaim/reuse could be more efficient than transfers. This is quite likely when you consider that the entire free pool must be in RIPE's hands, therefore there is the greatest possibility of aggregation of blocks, by rejecting 2007-08 and keeping the current system. Per Heldal mentions legal implications for RIPE. Clearly one of those is the conflict between the statement of principle in the IPv6 policy, and the enabling of transfers for IPv4. How will the courts react to numbers which are freehold property, and others which are not? Edited versions of the policy proposal cannot fix these issues. --Michael Dillon From gert at space.net Wed Oct 8 17:18:13 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 17:18:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20081008142619.GM28549@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20081008151813.GO28549@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 03:44:02PM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > > It is contrary to the goals of this document > > > and is not in the interests of the Internet > > > community as a whole for address space to be > > > considered freehold property. > > > > Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents > > into account? "Different circumstances". > > Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not > make any distinction between the two versions of IP. Since this statement is very much obviously in the context of IPv6, why should it mention IPv4, or point out that "differently from the rest of the document, we're only talking about IPv6 here"? > > > 2007-08 should be rejected because no consensus has been formed and > > > > This is exactly the point of a "v3" of this document: take > > into account previous discussions and comments, and try > > finding a consensus on the reworked document. > > > > The argument "I reject this version because no consensus was > > formed on a previous version" is not a very useful > > contribution, in itself - if you have specific issues with > > *v3* (or your concerns about v1 and v2 are still > > un-addressed), please voice them. > > When there is a huge lack of consensus in favour of a policy > proposal, that proposal should be abandoned. It goes against > consensus to continually make small changes to the proposal > and extend the whole process by months or years. This does not > help the stakeholders in RIPE and I do not believe that this > is what people expect from the WG chairs. I don't see a "huge lack of consensus". I see specific worries (that can be addressed), and I did see some statements of support. Then I did see one individual waving the ETNO flag (which has no significance to RIPE policy processes, btw - it's "individuals taking part in the discussion" not "I represent a bigger organization that you"), fundamentally opposing anything, without being willing to start a constructive dialogue or listen to the proposer's arguments. Which is one of the big problems with the ETNO folks - they brew their statements outside the RIPE processes, and since the statements are already finished when they are presented here, they can't adjust their position. Which is not the way to constructively go about changing policies. > But you asked for specific issues. Thanks! I leave it to the proposers of the protocol to answer these. Gert Doering -- APWG chairs -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 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 leo.vegoda at icann.org Wed Oct 8 17:14:25 2008 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:14:25 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 08/10/2008 4:44, "michael.dillon at bt.com" wrote: >>> It is contrary to the goals of this document >>> and is not in the interests of the Internet >>> community as a whole for address space to be >>> considered freehold property. >> >> Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents >> into account? "Different circumstances". > > Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not > make any distinction between the two versions of IP. Actually, the first sentence to that document starts with the words: "This document defines registry policies for the assignment and allocation of globally unique IPv6 addresses". It is very clear that it doesn't apply to IPv4. The fact that IPv4 is almost completely allocated while IPv6 is almost completely empty seems relevant to me. I'd like to think that the policy took appropriate account of the circumstances. Regards, Leo Vegoda From marc.neuckens at belgacom.be Wed Oct 8 17:46:22 2008 From: marc.neuckens at belgacom.be (marc.neuckens at belgacom.be) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 17:46:22 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Do I understand it correctly that a big part of RIPE community has no major objections to the following : LIR A has different allocations At a certain moment it no longer requires part of this address space. LIR_A can sell this to LIR_B as long as LIR B can justify it's need (at any price agreed between LIR_A and LIR_B) If this is allowed, don't you think some people are thinking of starting a new company with impressive business plans and lot's of future customers but their only reason of existence is speculation on IPv4 exhaustion ? Marc Neuckens Belgacom > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Leo Vegoda > Sent: 08 October 2008 17:14 > To: michael.dillon at bt.com; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling > Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) > > On 08/10/2008 4:44, "michael.dillon at bt.com" wrote: > > >>> It is contrary to the goals of this document > >>> and is not in the interests of the Internet > >>> community as a whole for address space to be > >>> considered freehold property. > >> > >> Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents > >> into account? "Different circumstances". > > > > Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not > > make any distinction between the two versions of IP. > > Actually, the first sentence to that document starts with the words: "This > document defines registry policies for the assignment and allocation of > globally unique IPv6 addresses". It is very clear that it doesn't apply to > IPv4. > > The fact that IPv4 is almost completely allocated while IPv6 is almost > completely empty seems relevant to me. I'd like to think that the policy > took appropriate account of the circumstances. > > Regards, > > Leo Vegoda **** DISCLAIMER **** http://www.belgacom.be/maildisclaimer From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Oct 8 17:55:32 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:55:32 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20081008151813.GO28549@Space.Net> Message-ID: > Since this statement is very much obviously in the context of > IPv6, why should it mention IPv4, or point out that > "differently from the rest of the document, we're only > talking about IPv6 here"? The IPv6 policy document was a global project so it reflects the overall basis on which an IPv6 policy was started. In other words, that statement about addresses not being freehold property refers to IPv4 and says that IPv6 is just the same, not freehold property which an organization can buy or sell. > I don't see a "huge lack of consensus". Count the messages in the Address Policy WG archive discussing 2007-08 since June. That is what I consider to be a huge lack of consensus. > Then I did see one individual waving the ETNO flag (which has > no significance to RIPE policy processes, btw - it's > "individuals taking part in the discussion" not "I represent > a bigger organization that you"), fundamentally opposing > anything, without being willing to start a constructive > dialogue or listen to the proposer's arguments. > > Which is one of the big problems with the ETNO folks - they > brew their statements outside the RIPE processes, and since > the statements are already finished when they are presented > here, they can't adjust their position. Which is not the way > to constructively go about changing policies. This is not very constructive dialog and I am disturbed to see a WG chair writing this kind of stuff. A. I did not wave the ETNO flag. I merely repeated one point that ETNO had raised, along with one point from Eric Schmidt, one from Jay Daley, and one from Per Heldal. All of these points come from the message of Sander Steffann which he posted on June 13th and for which I provided the URL in my first message. B. When you asked for specific issues I decided to clarify with more than a reference to Sander's message. I pointed out some specific issues which have not yet been resolved, and which, I believe, cannot be resolved. C. Regardless of how ETNO reaches the positions in its position papers, the fact is that they do publish them. This means that we need to take them into consideration if we consider the RIPE process to be open and transparent. I note that people from at least two other ETNO members (France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom) also posted to this list, i.e. they took part in the discussion. Rather than insulting people because they happen to work for a company which happens to be a member of ETNO, we should be making greater attempts to engage them in the discussion here. I've done a bit of that, which is why FT and DT have participated a bit, but I believe that the main responsibility for bringing people into the discussion falls on the WG chairs. The fact remains that you cannot reach a consensus without an active discussion. --Michael Dillon From nick at inex.ie Wed Oct 8 17:56:39 2008 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:56:39 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48ECD837.7080002@inex.ie> > But you asked for specific issues. Let's start with ETNO's > concerns that a transfer system cannot ensure a process that > is open, transparent and equitable. By opening the door to > private negotiations and agreements between LIR's, you will > have destroyed the very foundation of RIPE, which is openness, > transparency and fairness. Michael, Could we see a public statement from ETNO or the majority of its members that should an IPv4 address market emerge after RIR exhaustion, that all ETNO members will abstain from engaging in IP address trading? I think that a statement of this form would send a very clear message to RIPE that an IPv4 address market of the type proposed in 2007-08 is not supported by community consensus. Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick at inex.ie From nick at inex.ie Wed Oct 8 17:49:57 2008 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:49:57 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> References: <20080918121902.CB5DD2F592@herring.ripe.net> <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> Message-ID: <48ECD6A5.1010302@inex.ie> > as the comment period for the v3 of 2007-08 is nearing its end (one week > left), please send your comments about it to the list. > > Do you want to see this proposal implemented? > > Do you absolutely refuse this proposal, and any movement in that direction? > > Do you agree, in general, with the underlying idea, but need to see changes > in the specifics before this can become policy? 2007-08 is not perfect. It has flaws, and it creates certain problems, many of which have been discussed previously on this channel. However, the alternative is an underground market which is impossible to control if you don't acknowledge its existence. From this perspective, 2007-08 is significantly less harmful to the environment than any other alternative I've seen. In many respects, it's quite a good example of "worse is better". I support the proposal as-is. The additions to v3 are for the better. 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 mark.h.mcfadden at bt.com Wed Oct 8 18:09:08 2008 From: mark.h.mcfadden at bt.com (mark.h.mcfadden at bt.com) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 17:09:08 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20081008151813.GO28549@Space.Net> References: <20081008142619.GM28549@Space.Net> <20081008151813.GO28549@Space.Net> Message-ID: Gert: this: >> Then I did see one individual waving the ETNO flag (which has no >> significance to RIPE policy processes, btw - it's "individuals taking >> part in the discussion" not "I represent a bigger organization that >> you"), fundamentally opposing anything, without being willing to >> start a constructive dialogue or listen to the proposer's arguments. >> >> Which is one of the big problems with the ETNO folks - they brew >> their statements outside the RIPE processes, and since the statements >> are already finished when they are presented here, they can't adjust >> their position. Which is not the way to constructively go about >> changing policies. Just seems plain wrong. I wonder where you got this idea. ETNO does have significance in RIPE policy processes: it's members are paid-up, card-carrying LIRs. They get to propose, react to and discuss RIPE policy issues just like anyone else. I've never seen anyone from ETNO suggest on this list anything to the effect of "I represent a bigger organization than you." I'd like to see a reference or source for that remark. The next two statements are factually incorrect. ETNO made a presentation on principles regarding IPv4 exhaustion in Amsterdam. There was tons of feedback at the microphone ( I remember because I did the presentation ) and the LIRs who are members of ETNO considered that feedback and even presented a revision of that set of principles. Instead of fundamentally opposing anything, they actually proposed a set of constructive principles to guide policy in the period of IPv4 free pool exhaustion. The suggestion that ETNO can't adjust their position is also incorrect. ETNO did adjust their position in response to the feedback and discussion on the mailing list after the Amsterdam presentation. The LIRs who are a part of ETNO, it seems to me, are linked by a set of common interests and shared circumstances and very naturally talk amongst each other on policy issues that matter to them. My problem with your attitude toward ETNO is that you seem to ignore the fact that people talk about RIPE policy development in many places; not just on the RIPE address policy group mailing list. When a group of LIRs come together and say something about policy developments in RIPE, I think the chair should be welcoming the input rather than disrespecting it in public. mark -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 10:18 AM To: Dillon,M,Michael,DMK R Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) Hi, On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 03:44:02PM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > > It is contrary to the goals of this document > > > and is not in the interests of the Internet > > > community as a whole for address space to be > > > considered freehold property. > > > > Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents > > into account? "Different circumstances". > > Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not > make any distinction between the two versions of IP. Since this statement is very much obviously in the context of IPv6, why should it mention IPv4, or point out that "differently from the rest of the document, we're only talking about IPv6 here"? > > > 2007-08 should be rejected because no consensus has been formed and > > > > This is exactly the point of a "v3" of this document: take > > into account previous discussions and comments, and try > > finding a consensus on the reworked document. > > > > The argument "I reject this version because no consensus was > > formed on a previous version" is not a very useful > > contribution, in itself - if you have specific issues with > > *v3* (or your concerns about v1 and v2 are still > > un-addressed), please voice them. > > When there is a huge lack of consensus in favour of a policy > proposal, that proposal should be abandoned. It goes against > consensus to continually make small changes to the proposal > and extend the whole process by months or years. This does not > help the stakeholders in RIPE and I do not believe that this > is what people expect from the WG chairs. I don't see a "huge lack of consensus". I see specific worries (that can be addressed), and I did see some statements of support. Then I did see one individual waving the ETNO flag (which has no significance to RIPE policy processes, btw - it's "individuals taking part in the discussion" not "I represent a bigger organization that you"), fundamentally opposing anything, without being willing to start a constructive dialogue or listen to the proposer's arguments. Which is one of the big problems with the ETNO folks - they brew their statements outside the RIPE processes, and since the statements are already finished when they are presented here, they can't adjust their position. Which is not the way to constructively go about changing policies. > But you asked for specific issues. Thanks! I leave it to the proposers of the protocol to answer these. Gert Doering -- APWG chairs -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Oct 8 18:14:41 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 17:14:41 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <48ECD837.7080002@inex.ie> Message-ID: > Could we see a public statement from ETNO or the majority of > its members that should an IPv4 address market emerge after > RIR exhaustion, that all ETNO members will abstain from > engaging in IP address trading? I don't know why you are asking me that question. I have no formal involvement with ETNO. All I do is read ETNO documents, occasionally post messages about the content of their documents on RIR lists and try to encourage more ETNO members to join in the RIR dialog. As you well know, ETNO members tend to be larger companies, and therefore they have complex, and slow internal processes. I'm not sure that it would be possible to get a company to make the sort of committment that you are asking for. On the other hand, the same complexity and slowness would make it rather difficult for one of those companies to actually sell an IP address block. Anyone who looks at this aspect of the issue will see that huge amounts of the IPv4 address space are tied up in this way and are very unlikely to ever be transferred to another company if it appears that IP addresses have some monetary value. As long as it is a technical issue, it is possible to hand back unused addresses as we recently did with a piece of the 14/8 block. --Michael Dillon P.S. My employer happens to be a member of ETNO but all that means is that I sometimes have an opportunity to comment on ETNO documents before they are published. Other people in the company handle the ETNO relationship which is mostly not about IP addresses at all. My postings to this list are based on my many years of experience in the ISP industry since starting a regional ISP back in 1994. From gert at space.net Wed Oct 8 18:31:12 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 18:31:12 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20081008142619.GM28549@Space.Net> <20081008151813.GO28549@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20081008163112.GU28549@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 05:09:08PM +0100, mark.h.mcfadden at bt.com wrote: > >> Which is one of the big problems with the ETNO folks - they brew > >> their statements outside the RIPE processes, and since the statements > >> are already finished when they are presented here, they can't adjust > >> their position. Which is not the way to constructively go about > >> changing policies. > > Just seems plain wrong. I wonder where you got this idea. This is the way it has been received by the readers of this list (not only me). I need to reword, and apologize - there are, of course, active participants on this mailing list that are working for ETNO members and that take part in the RIPE processes as concerned individuals. Which is very welcome. What is fairly ill-received is cast-into-stone ETNO "statements of autority" - statements like this one: ------- snip -------- ETNO, in coming to the position that it did, considered the transfer issue from all angles, and the points that you raised in your e-mail were part of that consideration.?ETNO will continue to contribute the RIPE mailing list in the future but see no reason at this stage to change its position. ------- snip -------- This can be read as "you can talk all you want, but we've decided!" - and this has been, as I wrote, ill-received. > The suggestion that ETNO can't adjust their position is also incorrect. > ETNO did adjust their position in response to the feedback and > discussion on the mailing list after the Amsterdam presentation. The > LIRs who are a part of ETNO, it seems to me, are linked by a set of > common interests and shared circumstances and very naturally talk > amongst each other on policy issues that matter to them. My problem > with your attitude toward ETNO is that you seem to ignore the fact that > people talk about RIPE policy development in many places; not just on > the RIPE address policy group mailing list. When a group of LIRs come > together and say something about policy developments in RIPE, I think > the chair should be welcoming the input rather than disrespecting it in > public. I would very much welcome all ETNO members to discuss the matters *here* - they might even have different opinions regarding proposals. Discussing RIPE policy matters outside of RIPE, and then presenting a "joint opinion" statement is not the best way to participate in the process of forming a policy - and it makes it very hard to work with these folks to come to a common way forward. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 305 bytes Desc: not available URL: From heldal at eml.cc Wed Oct 8 18:43:03 2008 From: heldal at eml.cc (Per Heldal) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:43:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> References: <20080918121902.CB5DD2F592@herring.ripe.net> <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> Message-ID: <1223484184.11020.7.camel@obelix.sandbu> On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 13:39 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi fellow APWG members, > > as the comment period for the v3 of 2007-08 is nearing its end (one week > left), please send your comments about it to the list. > > Do you want to see this proposal implemented? No! > > Do you absolutely refuse this proposal, and any movement in that direction? Yes! > > Do you agree, in general, with the underlying idea, No! > but need to see changes > in the specifics before this can become policy? No! I'd prefer a firm rejection of any policy designed enable a marketplace for integers. That should at least discourage some of the worst speculators and eliminate the financial motive for any organisation to hang on to blocks they don't need and return them to the common pool. //per From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Oct 8 18:52:08 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 17:52:08 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20081008163112.GU28549@Space.Net> Message-ID: > ------- snip -------- > ETNO, in coming to the position that it did, considered the > transfer issue from all angles, and the points that you > raised in your e-mail were part of that consideration.?ETNO > will continue to contribute the RIPE mailing list in the > future but see no reason at this stage to change its position. > ------- snip -------- > > This can be read as "you can talk all you want, but we've > decided!" - and this has been, as I wrote, ill-received. May I suggest that you, as RIPE Address Policy WG chair should take this issue up with the ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues WG Chairperson who wrote those words, and not use them to wave the flag against ETNO. When I read those same words which you quoted, I interpreted them quite differently. But regardless of the specific policy points under discussion, there is clearly a cultural misunderstanding between some RIPE participants and some ETNO participants. Dialogue is the way to get this resolved. > I would very much welcome all ETNO members to discuss the > matters *here* > - they might even have different opinions regarding proposals. Have you asked ETNO to provide you the email addresses for all ETNO representatives in order to invite them to join in? --Michael Dillon From mark.h.mcfadden at bt.com Wed Oct 8 18:53:51 2008 From: mark.h.mcfadden at bt.com (mark.h.mcfadden at bt.com) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 17:53:51 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20081008163112.GU28549@Space.Net> References: <20081008142619.GM28549@Space.Net> <20081008151813.GO28549@Space.Net> <20081008163112.GU28549@Space.Net> Message-ID: Thanks Gert! Hi, >>> On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 05:09:08PM +0100, mark.h.mcfadden at bt.com wrote: >>> > >> Which is one of the big problems with the ETNO folks - they brew >>> > >> their statements outside the RIPE processes, and since the >>> > >> statements are already finished when they are presented here, they >>> > >> can't adjust their position. Which is not the way to >>> > >> constructively go about changing policies. >>> > >>> > Just seems plain wrong. I wonder where you got this idea. >>> >>> This is the way it has been received by the readers of this list (not only me). >>> >>> I need to reword, and apologize - there are, of course, active participants on this mailing list that are working for ETNO members and that take >>> part in the RIPE processes as concerned individuals. Which is very welcome. Some readers? All readers? Just the readers who have talked to you? What bothers me about this is that you are willing to speak for an anonymous and unnamed group of "readers," but object when a group of LIRs speaks together with one voice. >>> What is fairly ill-received is cast-into-stone ETNO "statements of autority" >>> - statements like this one: >>> >>> ------- snip -------- >>> ETNO, in coming to the position that it did, considered the transfer issue from all angles, and the points that you raised in your e-mail were >>> >>> part of that consideration.?ETNO will continue to contribute the RIPE mailing list in the future but see no reason at this stage to change its >>> >>> position. >>> ------- snip -------- >>> >>> This can be read as "you can talk all you want, but we've decided!" - and this has been, as I wrote, ill-received. But it could also be read without suspicion and cynicism. Instead of a "statement of authority" ETNO considered the discussion on the list and came to the conclusion that they were not convinced to change their opinion. Doesn't this happen all the time? Why are you singling out ETNO in this case? As discussions take place on the APWG mailing list many people have a position/opinion and maintain it, despite (or, because of) the ongoing discussion. >>> > The suggestion that ETNO can't adjust their position is also incorrect. >>> > ETNO did adjust their position in response to the feedback and >>> > discussion on the mailing list after the Amsterdam presentation. The >>> > LIRs who are a part of ETNO, it seems to me, are linked by a set of >>> > common interests and shared circumstances and very naturally talk >>> > amongst each other on policy issues that matter to them. My problem >>> > with your attitude toward ETNO is that you seem to ignore the fact >>> > that people talk about RIPE policy development in many places; not >>> > just on the RIPE address policy group mailing list. When a group of >>> > LIRs come together and say something about policy developments in >>> > RIPE, I think the chair should be welcoming the input rather than >>> > disrespecting it in public. >>> >>> I would very much welcome all ETNO members to discuss the matters *here* >>> - they might even have different opinions regarding proposals. >>> >>> Discussing RIPE policy matters outside of RIPE, and then presenting a "joint opinion" statement is not the best way to participate in the process >>> of forming a policy - and it makes it very hard to work with these folks to come to a common way forward. >>> I hope you're not suggesting that ETNO members can't choose to talk about RIPE policy matters when they get together. Of course they can. And, when they do, if they come to a common understanding and publish that as input to the RIPE APWG, the chair should welcome that input. Picking and choosing which input the chair finds acceptable is not an appropriate way to form policy. Mark McFadden Mark McFadden | Naming, Numbering and Addressing Strategist | Naming, Numbering and Addressing Policy and Strategy Team | BT Design From nigel at titley.com Wed Oct 8 18:29:12 2008 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:29:12 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20081008151813.GO28549@Space.Net> References: <20081008142619.GM28549@Space.Net> <20081008151813.GO28549@Space.Net> Message-ID: <48ECDFD8.5010403@titley.com> Gert Doering wrote: > Then I did see one individual waving the ETNO flag (which has no > significance to RIPE policy processes, btw - it's "individuals taking > part in the discussion" not "I represent a bigger organization that > you"), fundamentally opposing anything, without being willing to start > a constructive dialogue or listen to the proposer's arguments. > > Which is one of the big problems with the ETNO folks - they brew their > statements outside the RIPE processes, and since the statements are > already finished when they are presented here, they can't adjust their > position. Which is not the way to constructively go about changing > policies. > V3 of the policy was explicitly issued to address the main ETNO concern, that is the "need" requirement. If you carefully look at V3 you will see that the RIPE NCC now has to apply exactly the same checking and approval process that it does for a "normal" allocation. Nigel From niallm-subs at avernus.net Wed Oct 8 19:15:47 2008 From: niallm-subs at avernus.net (Niall Murphy) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 18:15:47 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> References: <20080918121902.CB5DD2F592@herring.ripe.net> <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> Message-ID: I support this as-is, but I would hope we have the maturity to refine it if it becomes clear that it's not useful. Niall On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi fellow APWG members, > > as the comment period for the v3 of 2007-08 is nearing its end (one week > left), please send your comments about it to the list. > > Do you want to see this proposal implemented? > > Do you absolutely refuse this proposal, and any movement in that direction? > > Do you agree, in general, with the underlying idea, but need to see changes > in the specifics before this can become policy? > > If there are no comments, it's a bit hard for the chairs to judge whether > we have consensus or not... > > Gert Doering, > APWG chair > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 02:19:02PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > > PDP Number: 2007-08 > > Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > The text of the policy proposal 2007-08 has been revised based on the > community feedback. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today. > As a result a new Review Phase is set for the proposal. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html > > > > and the draft RIPE Document at: > > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft2007-08-v3.html > > > > We encourage you to read the revised proposal and the draft document, and > send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 16 October 2008. > > > > Regards > > > > Filiz Yilmaz > > RIPE NCC > > Policy Development Officer > > > > > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From niallm-subs at avernus.net Wed Oct 8 19:14:47 2008 From: niallm-subs at avernus.net (Niall Murphy) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 18:14:47 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <1223484184.11020.7.camel@obelix.sandbu> References: <20080918121902.CB5DD2F592@herring.ripe.net> <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> <1223484184.11020.7.camel@obelix.sandbu> Message-ID: > Do you want to see this proposal implemented? No! > > I'd prefer a firm rejection of any policy designed enable a marketplace > for integers. That should at least discourage some of the worst > speculators and eliminate the financial motive for any organisation to > hang on to blocks they don't need and return them to the common pool. You are deliberately forestalling the possibility of new entrants getting any IPv4 after exhaustion, never mind existing operators for whom IPv4 pays employees' salaries. Is this the right tradeoff for the industry? Niall -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From heldal at eml.cc Wed Oct 8 19:25:26 2008 From: heldal at eml.cc (Per Heldal) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:25:26 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20080918121902.CB5DD2F592@herring.ripe.net> <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> <1223484184.11020.7.camel@obelix.sandbu> Message-ID: <1223486726.11020.11.camel@obelix.sandbu> On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 18:14 +0100, Niall Murphy wrote: > You are deliberately forestalling the possibility of new entrants > getting any IPv4 after exhaustion, never mind existing operators for > whom IPv4 pays employees' salaries. No. I support the idea that everyone has to wait in line with no advantage for those with the deepest pockets. > Is this the right tradeoff for the industry? > The right way for the industry is to plan for the future instead of trying to preserve the past. //per From randy at psg.com Wed Oct 8 19:33:01 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:33:01 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <1223486726.11020.11.camel@obelix.sandbu> References: <20080918121902.CB5DD2F592@herring.ripe.net> <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> <1223484184.11020.7.camel@obelix.sandbu> <1223486726.11020.11.camel@obelix.sandbu> Message-ID: <48ECEECD.101@psg.com> the level of self-righteousness bs and fantasy here is truly impressive. one would think that the goal would be to maximally get ipv4 space into play, not to punish people, keep someone from making a buck/euro/... this list is address policy, not social policy or self-righteous indignation policy. if you want to put your energy into social policy, go help poor people in exploited countries. no, not the usa, silly :) randy From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Oct 8 18:43:13 2008 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 17:43:13 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] does 2007-08 open the doors to address trading? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 8 Oct 2008, at 17:14, wrote: > Anyone who looks at this aspect of the issue will see that huge > amounts of > the IPv4 address space are tied up in this way and are very unlikely > to ever be transferred to another company if it appears that IP > addresses have some monetary value. I'm not sure it's as simple as that. If/when IP addresses have a more visible monetary value than they do today, I would expect that will create nasty accounting/auditing/taxation problems. For example when an "asset" that the organisation has "owned" for years suddenly appears from out of nowhere on the organisation's balance sheet. If the organisation has no need for some of its IP space and it's not *that* valuable, a CFO might be minded to hand it back rather than face the prospect of retrospectively readjusting their accounts and tax returns for the last umpteen years. From lear at cisco.com Wed Oct 8 20:20:48 2008 From: lear at cisco.com (Eliot Lear) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:20:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <48ECDFD8.5010403@titley.com> References: <20081008142619.GM28549@Space.Net> <20081008151813.GO28549@Space.Net> <48ECDFD8.5010403@titley.com> Message-ID: <48ECFA00.9010201@cisco.com> Nigel, > V3 of the policy was explicitly issued to address the main ETNO > concern, that is the "need" requirement. If you carefully look at V3 > you will see that the RIPE NCC now has to apply exactly the same > checking and approval process that it does for a "normal" allocation. This brings 2007-08 closer to ARIN's 2008-2, and in fact "improves" on it by not prohibiting disaggregation. While you very reasonably point out that the routing table could explode under such circumstances, having such a prohibition along with needs justification can lead to perverse impacts where holders of large blocks are only able to unload them to large users like ISPs. Are there additional mechanisms that could be put into play to limit that explosion? For instance, could one cap the deaggregation rate per aggregated block to some number per anum? What work has been done in this area. Regards, Eliot Lear Cisco Systems From drc at virtualized.org Wed Oct 8 20:44:30 2008 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 11:44:30 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <1223484184.11020.7.camel@obelix.sandbu> References: <20080918121902.CB5DD2F592@herring.ripe.net> <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> <1223484184.11020.7.camel@obelix.sandbu> Message-ID: <15D3E2A3-A3CB-4612-AA11-9C7C134443D8@virtualized.org> On Oct 8, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Per Heldal wrote: > I'd prefer a firm rejection of any policy designed enable a > marketplace > for integers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canute_the_Great#Ruler_of_the_waves > That should at least discourage some of the worst > speculators and eliminate the financial motive for any organisation to > hang on to blocks they don't need and return them to the common pool. There is no incentive to be more efficient in IPv4 address space in order to return blocks to the common pool now. I'm curious: why do you think will there be incentive in the future? Regards, -drc From gert at space.net Wed Oct 8 23:24:11 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 23:24:11 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20081008142619.GM28549@Space.Net> <20081008151813.GO28549@Space.Net> <20081008163112.GU28549@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20081008212411.GX28549@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 05:53:51PM +0100, mark.h.mcfadden at bt.com wrote: > I hope you're not suggesting that ETNO members can't choose to > talk about RIPE policy matters when they get together. Certainly not. > Of course they can. Yes. > And, when they do, if they come to a common understanding and publish > that as input to the RIPE APWG, the chair should welcome that input. > Picking and choosing which input the chair finds acceptable is not > an appropriate way to form policy. Well. I welcome all input from all participants on the mailing list (and off-list, of course). And of course I cannot speak for "all readers of the mailing list". But still, as the chair, I can take the liberty to point out approaches that make the process of finding a compromise *for the common goal of proper Internet resource stewardship* much more awkward than necessary. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 305 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Oct 8 02:56:26 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:56:26 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) References: Message-ID: <48EC053A.980EE46@ix.netcom.com> Michael and all, I concur with Michael here... michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > as the comment period for the v3 of 2007-08 is nearing its > > end (one week left), please send your comments about it to the list. > > 2007-08 > is a dishonest policy. It enables buying and selling of IP address > blocks without saying anything about how this relates to the statement > in RIPE-421 (The IPv6 policy) which says: > > It is contrary to the goals of this document > and is not in the interests of the Internet > community as a whole for address space to be > considered freehold property. > > RIPE policy and practice already allows LIRs to return surplus > addresses to RIPE. If an LIR finds itself in a position to have > surplus IPv4 addresses (very unlikely) then why do we need to > change the existing practice? > > I can see only one motivation for this change, and that is to allow > LIRs to sell address space, and I believe that this is contrary > to the interests of the entire IP networking community. > > 2007-08 should be rejected because no consensus has been formed and > we have seen very little discussion of the points outlined by Sander > Steffann > in his email of June 13th. > 0382.html> > > --Michael Dillon Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Oct 8 03:01:57 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:01:57 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) References: Message-ID: <48EC0685.3DD038FD@ix.netcom.com> Michael and all, AgainI fully agree with Michael here.... michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > > It is contrary to the goals of this document > > > and is not in the interests of the Internet > > > community as a whole for address space to be > > > considered freehold property. > > > > Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents > > into account? "Different circumstances". > > Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not > make any distinction between the two versions of IP. > > > > 2007-08 should be rejected because no consensus has been formed and > > > > This is exactly the point of a "v3" of this document: take > > into account previous discussions and comments, and try > > finding a consensus on the reworked document. > > > > The argument "I reject this version because no consensus was > > formed on a previous version" is not a very useful > > contribution, in itself - if you have specific issues with > > *v3* (or your concerns about v1 and v2 are still > > un-addressed), please voice them. > > When there is a huge lack of consensus in favour of a policy > proposal, that proposal should be abandoned. It goes against > consensus to continually make small changes to the proposal > and extend the whole process by months or years. This does not > help the stakeholders in RIPE and I do not believe that this > is what people expect from the WG chairs. > > But you asked for specific issues. Let's start with ETNO's > concerns that a transfer system cannot ensure a process that > is open, transparent and equitable. By opening the door to > private negotiations and agreements between LIR's, you will > have destroyed the very foundation of RIPE, which is openness, > transparency and fairness. > > Eric Schmidt feels that transfers open up more possibilities > for abuse. This is what happens when you allow for secret > agreements. > > Jay Daley says that reclaim/reuse could be more efficient than > transfers. This is quite likely when you consider that the entire > free pool must be in RIPE's hands, therefore there is the greatest > possibility of aggregation of blocks, by rejecting 2007-08 and > keeping the current system. > > Per Heldal mentions legal implications for RIPE. Clearly one of > those is the conflict between the statement of principle in the > IPv6 policy, and the enabling of transfers for IPv4. How will the > courts react to numbers which are freehold property, and others > which are not? > > Edited versions of the policy proposal cannot fix these issues. > > --Michael Dillon > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Oct 8 03:05:32 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:05:32 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published(Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) References: Message-ID: <48EC075C.EBF24613@ix.netcom.com> Leo and all, It doesn't matter if the wording only applies to IPv6 either. The same principals apply as Michael correctly stated them. Making IPv6 OR IPv4 address space a liquid asset is a huge error in judgment. Such would only make RIR's and LIR's IP address casinos. Leo Vegoda wrote: > On 08/10/2008 4:44, "michael.dillon at bt.com" wrote: > > >>> It is contrary to the goals of this document > >>> and is not in the interests of the Internet > >>> community as a whole for address space to be > >>> considered freehold property. > >> > >> Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents > >> into account? "Different circumstances". > > > > Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not > > make any distinction between the two versions of IP. > > Actually, the first sentence to that document starts with the words: "This > document defines registry policies for the assignment and allocation of > globally unique IPv6 addresses". It is very clear that it doesn't apply to > IPv4. > > The fact that IPv4 is almost completely allocated while IPv6 is almost > completely empty seems relevant to me. I'd like to think that the policy > took appropriate account of the circumstances. > > Regards, > > Leo Vegoda Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Oct 8 03:08:07 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:08:07 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) References: Message-ID: <48EC07F7.FAC6204@ix.netcom.com> Michael and all, Michael, Leo is not particularly interested in consensus if the consenses actually disagrees with him. michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > Since this statement is very much obviously in the context of > > IPv6, why should it mention IPv4, or point out that > > "differently from the rest of the document, we're only > > talking about IPv6 here"? > > The IPv6 policy document was a global project so it reflects > the overall basis on which an IPv6 policy was started. In > other words, that statement about addresses not being freehold > property refers to IPv4 and says that IPv6 is just the same, > not freehold property which an organization can buy or sell. > > > I don't see a "huge lack of consensus". > > Count the messages in the Address Policy WG archive discussing > 2007-08 since June. That is what I consider to be a huge > lack of consensus. > > > Then I did see one individual waving the ETNO flag (which has > > no significance to RIPE policy processes, btw - it's > > "individuals taking part in the discussion" not "I represent > > a bigger organization that you"), fundamentally opposing > > anything, without being willing to start a constructive > > dialogue or listen to the proposer's arguments. > > > > Which is one of the big problems with the ETNO folks - they > > brew their statements outside the RIPE processes, and since > > the statements are already finished when they are presented > > here, they can't adjust their position. Which is not the way > > to constructively go about changing policies. > > This is not very constructive dialog and I am disturbed to see > a WG chair writing this kind of stuff. > > A. I did not wave the ETNO flag. I merely repeated one point that > ETNO had raised, along with one point from Eric Schmidt, one from > Jay Daley, and one from Per Heldal. All of these points come from > the message of Sander Steffann which he posted on June 13th and > for which I provided the URL in my first message. > > B. When you asked for specific issues I decided to clarify > with more than a reference to Sander's message. I pointed out > some specific issues which have not yet been resolved, and > which, I believe, cannot be resolved. > > C. Regardless of how ETNO reaches the positions in its position > papers, the fact is that they do publish them. This means that > we need to take them into consideration if we consider the RIPE > process to be open and transparent. I note that people from at > least two other ETNO members (France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom) > also posted to this list, i.e. they took part in the discussion. > Rather than insulting people because they happen to work for a > company which happens to be a member of ETNO, we should be making > greater attempts to engage them in the discussion here. I've > done a bit of that, which is why FT and DT have participated > a bit, but I believe that the main responsibility for bringing > people into the discussion falls on the WG chairs. > > The fact remains that you cannot reach a consensus without > an active discussion. > > --Michael Dillon Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Oct 8 03:13:18 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:13:18 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (EnablingMethods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) References: <20080918121902.CB5DD2F592@herring.ripe.net> <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> <1223484184.11020.7.camel@obelix.sandbu> <1223486726.11020.11.camel@obelix.sandbu> <48ECEECD.101@psg.com> Message-ID: <48EC092D.CDAA5717@ix.netcom.com> Randy and all, Well the USA is broke and sevearly in debt. So all americans wheather we realize it of not are poor, despite what our bank account ballances my otherwise indicate accordingly. Randy Bush wrote: > the level of self-righteousness bs and fantasy here is truly impressive. > > one would think that the goal would be to maximally get ipv4 space into > play, not to punish people, keep someone from making a buck/euro/... > this list is address policy, not social policy or self-righteous > indignation policy. > > if you want to put your energy into social policy, go help poor people > in exploited countries. no, not the usa, silly :) > > randy Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From sander at steffann.nl Thu Oct 9 02:07:11 2008 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 02:07:11 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <48ECEECD.101@psg.com> References: <20080918121902.CB5DD2F592@herring.ripe.net> <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> <1223484184.11020.7.camel@obelix.sandbu> <1223486726.11020.11.camel@obelix.sandbu> <48ECEECD.101@psg.com> Message-ID: <5DF080DE-5DB1-4651-80A3-BE60D60A0D66@steffann.nl> Hi Randy, > one would think that the goal would be to maximally get ipv4 space > into play Unless we can get IPv6 completely deployed before we run out of IPv4 space, I think this should indeed be our current goal. - Sander From sander at steffann.nl Thu Oct 9 01:50:45 2008 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 01:50:45 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20081008142619.GM28549@Space.Net> <20081008151813.GO28549@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi Mark, > [...] people talk about RIPE policy development in many places; not > just on the RIPE address policy group mailing list. [...] This part scares me. The RIPE policy development process has to be as open and transparent as possible. When groups of stakeholders discuss RIPE policy development outside the 'official' channel (this mailing list) the process gets a lot less transparent... This is why it is so difficult for us as working group chairs to use statements like those from ETNO in the policy development process. We can't see how the statement was created and what the reasons and arguments were. I understand why ETNO members work together to think about such a complex subject as 2007-08, but to be able to participate in RIPE policy development those members will have to discuss the policy here on this mailing list where everyone can follow that discussion, and not only inside ETNO. I think the major problem in this case was calling it a 'statement' or 'position'. Such a name does not (seem to) give much room for discussion. If ETNO had published a list of concerns about the proposal and those concerns were discussed on this list there would be no problem. Michael said in another message: > Have you asked ETNO to provide you the email addresses for all ETNO > representatives in order to invite them to join in? They are discussing RIPE policy, so they (should) know what RIPE is and how RIPE policies are developed. If they don't, maybe ETNO can explain it to them and point them to this mailing list. If they are interested in RIPE policy development they should join in. I don't think it's a good idea to spam all ETNO representatives though :) Thanks, Sander Steffann From randy at psg.com Thu Oct 9 02:24:52 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:24:52 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: <5DF080DE-5DB1-4651-80A3-BE60D60A0D66@steffann.nl> References: <20080918121902.CB5DD2F592@herring.ripe.net> <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> <1223484184.11020.7.camel@obelix.sandbu> <1223486726.11020.11.camel@obelix.sandbu> <48ECEECD.101@psg.com> <5DF080DE-5DB1-4651-80A3-BE60D60A0D66@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <48ED4F54.6040101@psg.com> hi sander, >> one would think that the goal would be to maximally get ipv4 space >> into play > Unless we can get IPv6 completely deployed before we run out of IPv4 > space, I think this should indeed be our current goal. i think we should start a betting pool. when the last /8s are given to the rirs by iana, X percent of traffic in bits/sec measured at some easy point (say linx, amsix, or de-cix). i take X=6. yes, i am an optimist. and i do not believe that any amount of screaming, twisted policies, threats, ... will change this at all significantly, just as it does not for bcp 38, dns vulnerability patching, ... there are the folk who do things and the folk who don't. transfer is one of the few things we can do in the address policy space which may actually make a difference, albeit not a large one, but still a difference. randy From randy at psg.com Thu Oct 9 02:42:41 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:42:41 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) In-Reply-To: References: <20081008142619.GM28549@Space.Net> <20081008151813.GO28549@Space.Net> Message-ID: <48ED5381.9020503@psg.com> > This part scares me. The RIPE policy development process has to be as > open and transparent as possible. When groups of stakeholders discuss > RIPE policy development outside the 'official' channel (this mailing > list) the process gets a lot less transparent... > > This is why it is so difficult for us as working group chairs to use > statements like those from ETNO in the policy development process. We > can't see how the statement was created and what the reasons and > arguments were. I understand why ETNO members work together to think > about such a complex subject as 2007-08, but to be able to participate > in RIPE policy development those members will have to discuss the policy > here on this mailing list where everyone can follow that discussion, and > not only inside ETNO. > > I think the major problem in this case was calling it a 'statement' or > 'position'. Such a name does not (seem to) give much room for > discussion. If ETNO had published a list of concerns about the proposal > and those concerns were discussed on this list there would be no problem. to take an analog from the way organizations such as the ietf handle this o etno should be encouraged to think and confer all they want o but this wg is made up of individual experts (and lirs?) and people here speak as such randy From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Oct 8 07:18:14 2008 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:18:14 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) References: <20080918121902.CB5DD2F592@herring.ripe.net> <20081008113948.GA84811@Space.Net> <1223484184.11020.7.camel@obelix.sandbu> <1223486726.11020.11.camel@obelix.sandbu> <48ECEECD.101@psg.com> <5DF080DE-5DB1-4651-80A3-BE60D60A0D66@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <48EC4296.D33DCF0C@ix.netcom.com> Sander and all, Agreed this should be the goal, but the question and disagreement really is how best to "maximally get ipv4 space into play" and how to best recapture and than reallocate unused ipv4 space. Opening up a "IP Address Casino" doesn't strike me as a good, fair, or ballanced method to do so... Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Randy, > > > one would think that the goal would be to maximally get ipv4 space > > into play > > Unless we can get IPv6 completely deployed before we run out of IPv4 > space, I think this should indeed be our current goal. > > - Sander Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From andy at nosignal.org Thu Oct 9 09:28:25 2008 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:28:25 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] does 2007-08 open the doors to address trading? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8A3C17A3-F1CC-4709-BDF0-E4975658FA03@nosignal.org> On 8 Oct 2008, at 17:43, Jim Reid wrote: > I'm not sure it's as simple as that. If/when IP addresses have a > more visible monetary value than they do today, I would expect that > will create nasty accounting/auditing/taxation problems. For example > when an "asset" that the organisation has "owned" for years suddenly > appears from out of nowhere on the organisation's balance sheet. I broadly agree with your premise that there are 'implications to understand', but don't agree that IP addressing has historical value unless and until it becomes a scarce and tradable commodity. Addressing doesn't have latent worth right now because as an LIR with a justifiable need, I can beg resources from a hostmaster, at no (or a small marginal - if billing score is implicated) direct cost. I therefore can't trade any of these address resources because others can do the same. This means that today the addresses have no value. Best wishes Andy Davidson From poty at iiat.ru Thu Oct 9 10:50:46 2008 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:50:46 +0400 Subject: HA: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) Message-ID: > > I would very much welcome all ETNO members to discuss the > > matters *here* > > - they might even have different opinions regarding proposals. > > Have you asked ETNO to provide you the email addresses for > all ETNO representatives in order to invite them to join in? > > --Michael Dillon I'm worrying why somebody-1 have to ask somebody-2 to participate in somebody-1's policy process? RIPE maintains the list to get pros and cons and do the policy making process. All members, regardless of their participation in any other organizations, have in the list equal rights to voice. That's the RIPE's rule. And... when in Rome do as the Romans do. ETNO is one of the organizations in the RIPE region, and even not the biggest one I think. If they have something to say - let them say it. (You can't say that ETNO doesn't have the possibility). If they do not want to reveal their internal thoughts - let them do that too. (I think it is the state we have now) Vladislav Potapov Technical Director IIAT, Ltd. e-mail: poty at iiat.ru tel: +7 (495) 251-01-64 fax: +7 (495) 250-81-88