From davidm at futureinquestion.net Mon Sep 1 13:38:09 2008 From: davidm at futureinquestion.net (David Monosov) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:38:09 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Message-ID: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> Dear address-policy-wg, One concern I have about the current 2007-01 draft is the lack of arguments opposing the proposal mentioned under the 'Rationale' section of the document. While many such arguments were raised and discussed extensively on this mailing list, the draft itself raises only one such argument and proceeds to immediately dismiss it. In the current draft, some of the following objections may still be relevant to varying extent: - Given the diversity of legal systems the RIPE NCC service region, the success of contractually binding existing resource holders to a new contract and fee is uncertain, and might be the beginning of a long and expensive exercise in futility. - By attempting to levy a new fee on existing end users of directly assigned resources, RIPE NCC risks creating widespread dissent from these very same end users which had no voting right on this matter and were likely unaware of the proceedings of this WG; in the worst case scenario, this might result in end users utilizing resources regardless of their status in the WHOIS database. - Previous experience (domain reg. world) suggests that by putting an explicit price tag on number resources, the "sponsoring LIR" approach in its currently presented form might result in the rise of "discount LIRs". These LIRs would process the bulk of the assignments with no accountability to keep costs low, turning direct assignments into a revenue source and laying waste to many potential benefits which could result from this proposal. - The issue of resource reclamation when resources fall into disuse can potentially be addressed at significantly lower cost and complexity through technological solutions similar to those employed by e-retail outfits for customer account management (automated verification of electronic and snail-mail contacts, IVR verification of phone contacts, regular re-verification). Given the importance of this proposal, and considering that unfortunately the members participating in this WG are a small subset of the affected community, we should ensure the draft provides a balanced overview which includes the opposing arguments that remain valid for this draft. Such an overview would aid those who will be voting on this proposal without the benefit of years of participation and discussion in this WG. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov From ana.matic at ripe.net Mon Sep 1 15:11:05 2008 From: ana.matic at ripe.net (Ana Matic) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:11:05 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-09 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool) Message-ID: <20080901131105.84E512F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2007-09 Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2007-09, "Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool" has been withdrawn. The proposer decided to withdraw this proposal due to insufficient support for it. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-09.html Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC From shane at time-travellers.org Mon Sep 1 19:30:33 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:30:33 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> References: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> Message-ID: <1220290233.6562.55.camel@shane-macbook-pro> David, On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 13:38 +0200, David Monosov wrote: > - Given the diversity of legal systems the RIPE NCC service region, > the success > of contractually binding existing resource holders to a new contract > and fee is > uncertain, and might be the beginning of a long and expensive exercise > in futility. Hm... the only thing fee-related is: "Any specific details of possible fees for such End Users are also out the scope of this proposal. This needs to be developed by the RIPE NCC Board in the same manner that LIR fees are proposed and developed." My take on the fee issue is: * The intention of the proposal is to track resources, not to collect money. If PI-holders have a contract with an LIR (for instance, one of their peers), then there is no fee necessary. * PI-holders do place *some* burden on the management of the Internet number resources, and so asking them to pay is not bad. I think that in the ARIN region the fee is $100 a year (about ?70) for allocations like this, which is a trivial amount of money, especially since (unlike in the ARIN region I think) there is a way to avoid this cost completely (by using an LIR). -- Shane From davidm at futureinquestion.net Mon Sep 1 22:18:50 2008 From: davidm at futureinquestion.net (David Monosov) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:18:50 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <1220290233.6562.55.camel@shane-macbook-pro> References: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> <1220290233.6562.55.camel@shane-macbook-pro> Message-ID: <48BC4E2A.1080301@futureinquestion.net> Dear Shane, Shane Kerr wrote: > David, > > On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 13:38 +0200, David Monosov wrote: > >> - Given the diversity of legal systems the RIPE NCC service region, >> the success >> of contractually binding existing resource holders to a new contract >> and fee is >> uncertain, and might be the beginning of a long and expensive exercise >> in futility. > > Hm... the only thing fee-related is: > > "Any specific details of possible fees for such End Users are > also out the scope of this proposal. This needs to be developed > by the RIPE NCC Board in the same manner that LIR fees are > proposed and developed." > The proposal also refers to a document titled ?Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region?, which contains additional information on this subject. > My take on the fee issue is: > > * The intention of the proposal is to track resources, not to > collect money. The intention is clear. It's the contractual and operational details which are in a bit of a flux, and could benefit from a more balanced overview within the draft to present some of the potential implementation pitfalls. > If PI-holders have a contract with an LIR (for > instance, one of their peers), then there is no fee necessary. For what it's worth, currently the aforementioned document appears to contradict your take on this particular issue. It makes a specific requirement for assigned resources to be returned in the event the annual fee to the LIR is not paid. > * PI-holders do place *some* burden on the management of the > Internet number resources, and so asking them to pay is not bad. > > I think that in the ARIN region the fee is $100 a year (about ?70) for > allocations like this, which is a trivial amount of money, especially > since (unlike in the ARIN region I think) there is a way to avoid this > cost completely (by using an LIR). > > -- > Shane > -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov From berni at birkenwald.de Mon Sep 1 23:04:23 2008 From: berni at birkenwald.de (Bernhard Schmidt) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:04:23 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> References: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> Message-ID: <48BC58D7.3020200@birkenwald.de> Hello, > One concern I have about the current 2007-01 draft is the lack of arguments > opposing the proposal mentioned under the 'Rationale' section of the document. > While many such arguments were raised and discussed extensively on this mailing > list, the draft itself raises only one such argument and proceeds to immediately > dismiss it. > > In the current draft, some of the following objections may still be relevant to > varying extent: > > - Given the diversity of legal systems the RIPE NCC service region, the success > of contractually binding existing resource holders to a new contract and fee is > uncertain, and might be the beginning of a long and expensive exercise in futility. > > - By attempting to levy a new fee on existing end users of directly assigned > resources, RIPE NCC risks creating widespread dissent from these very same end > users which had no voting right on this matter and were likely unaware of the > proceedings of this WG; in the worst case scenario, this might result in end > user utilizing resources regardless of their status in the WHOIS database. To be honest, my intention to see 2007-01 put in action is to solve the imbalance imposed by the current billing scheme (PA has a recurring, for most networks not too small price tag attached, PI is basically free). Don't tell me PI is not PA because you cannot assign it to other endusers, there are dozens of ISPs that run entirely on PI. Another goal, I might be sticking something into a hornet's nest here, is to have a pricetag imposed on the only thing that costs money to all service-providers worldwide, and that is routingslots. I've heard from a lot of people who actually want this, but I don't see any technical sane way to achieve it. The closest thing are recurring fees for PI space. I know this doesn't handle deaggregation on it's own, but it's a start. Regarding the "new contract" thing. In my eyes, the cause with PIv4 is lost anyway. I want this for PIv6 from the start, and for new PIv4 assignments to be fair. If it is legally possible to push old resource holders into contracts with recurring fees, do it, if it isn't then don't. So basically what I would like to see is the following: - a recurring fee that is imposed to all PIv6 and new PIv4 assignments - the contract might be with a LIR or with RIPE, with substantial higher cost for dealing with RIPE directly - there will be _no_ scoring system (categories or whatever) that lowers the cost per assignment when a LIR/enduser is managing more of them. At Dec. 31st every PI assignment in contractual relation with RIPE NCC directly costs y EUR billed to the enduser, every PI assignment in contractual relation with a LIR costs x EUR (0 < x < y) billed to the LIR WITHOUT REBATE. The LIR can decide by itself how much it adds for handling the contract when billing it to the enduser. This should take care of the "Discount LIRs". - there should be some contract with existing PI holders. If there is consensus not to bill old assignments retroactively or if the legal advisors decide it's too risky, fine with me. Have a contract to track resources, but don't bill them. If however existing assignments are to be transferred the normal contract should be required. So basically, bill new resources, get a sensible approach with old resources and finally get PIv6 out of the door. I think 2007-01 v4.0 is the right tool to do this, and I want to see this soon. You may shoot now. Bernhard From nick at inex.ie Tue Sep 2 02:13:43 2008 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:13:43 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> References: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> Message-ID: <48BC8537.1030900@inex.ie> David, > One concern I have about the current 2007-01 draft is the lack of arguments > opposing the proposal mentioned under the 'Rationale' section of the document. > While many such arguments were raised and discussed extensively on this mailing > list, the draft itself raises only one such argument and proceeds to immediately > dismiss it. ok, point noted, although I confess that it would have been more helpful if you had raised this before - 2007-01 has been around since June last year. > In the current draft, some of the following objections may still be relevant to > varying extent: > > - Given the diversity of legal systems the RIPE NCC service region, the success > of contractually binding existing resource holders to a new contract and fee is > uncertain, and might be the beginning of a long and expensive exercise in futility. Possibly. Ultimately, the decision about whether or not the retroactive nature of the proposal will actually be put into practice is up to the RIPE NCC board, because that's an operational matter. My understanding is that the RIPE NCC board is taking legal advice on the matter, and if the legal advice is to stay away from the retroactive assignments clean-up, then that is probably what they will do. As regards process length, my understanding is that everyone in the RIPE NCC expects this to be long and probably troublesome. There is 16 years of accumulated detritus in the database, and cleaning it up is neither going to be cheap nor quick. The fee will be set using the normal RIPE NCC budgeting process. There will probably be some adjustment to the fee calculation model that is used for PA resource holders, but again that's operational. > - By attempting to levy a new fee on existing end users of directly assigned > resources, RIPE NCC risks creating widespread dissent from these very same end > users which had no voting right on this matter and were likely unaware of the > proceedings of this WG; in the worst case scenario, this might result in end > users utilizing resources regardless of their status in the WHOIS database. I want a pony! What you're really pointing out is that people have got used to the idea that they were getting something for free and that they are going to whinge about this regime coming to an end. Unfortunately, the free model is broken - number resources cost money to manage and right now, other people are footing the bill for this management. It also creates an environment where PI addresses are actually a more attractive proposition than PA address space, which flies in the face of RIPE's current and past number resource management policies. Both of these issues are serious problems. 2007-01 requests that this model change and that PI resource holders begin to assume some of the responsibilities which they are not currently obliged to. Do I need to talk about rights and responsibilities being different sides of the same coin? Probably not, but it's relevant here. Resource hi-jacking out of contempt could happen, yes. But a PI resource database cleanup will probably help prevent other hijacking vectors. Overall, my gut feeling is that it will improve things. The bottom line is: there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. And much as I want a pony, I'm not going to get one. Actually, I'd prefer free multi-gig ethernet to my house instead of a pony and will gladly accept any offers for same. Please reply to the email address above; serious offers only, if you wouldn't mind. > - Previous experience (domain reg. world) suggests that by putting an explicit > price tag on number resources, the "sponsoring LIR" approach in its currently > presented form might result in the rise of "discount LIRs". These LIRs would > process the bulk of the assignments with no accountability to keep costs low, > turning direct assignments into a revenue source and laying waste to many > potential benefits which could result from this proposal. This could happen, yes - I don't believe that it's happened to any huge extent in other RIR catchment areas, but it's not an impossible scenario. Sponsoring LIRs will be charged for PI resources, probably at a different rate for end-users who wish to interface with the RIPE NCC directly. Call it retail vs. wholesale, if you wish, although those are probably not very good terms given the context here. The RIPE NCC does not have any authority to dictate to the sponsoring LIR what the price to the end-user should be, so there will be effectively an open market for sponsoring LIRs to charge what they want for acting as a sponsoring LIR. As there's lots of competition in the ISP marketplace, prices will tend to converge on the price that LIRs are charged. Probably discount LIRs will appear. If they do, so what? They will have to follow the same rules as anyone else. The RIPE NCC doesn't have the resources to micromanage 38000 resource allocations down to the last detail, and we need to acknowledge this (and if they did, they would be an appalling organisation to deal with). There is trust required here, and a realisation that while some abuse will occur, it should be minimised by appropriate means. But again, operational stuff. > - The issue of resource reclamation when resources fall into disuse can > potentially be addressed at significantly lower cost and complexity through > technological solutions similar to those employed by e-retail outfits for > customer account management (automated verification of electronic and snail-mail > contacts, IVR verification of phone contacts, regular re-verification). Indeed, this is correct. However, your proposal doesn't deal with the problem that PI resource holders are getting a free lunch paid for by someone else. Conversely, there's nothing to stop the RIPE NCC from implementing direct PI assignments using something like this, but one way or another, money will be involved. Again, it's outside the scope of 2007-01 to specify to the NCC how to deal with the issue. I don't want to sound like I'm sweeping your concerns about implementation under the carpet by yacking out the "not my problem" line. But, this is the way that the RIPE NCC operates: policy is policy, and operations are operations. Ultimately, the implementation will be done by them and them alone, and given their track record in dealing with registration issues over the past 16 years, I'm pretty happy to see them being given a good degree of latitude to decide how best to implement the policy. After all, they know a lot more about how to manage this sort of stuff than I do. If it turns out that they do things that people don't like, then they will be complained at, which action has historically helped things to improve (e.g. at various stages, hostmaster turnaround times, complexity of forms, etc). There's nothing like a brightly flashing red LED to grab someone's attention. As part of this feedback process, it would be useful to get updates from the NCC at RIPE meetings about how the process turns out in practice. While this isn't the forum to dictate operational matters, that doesn't mean that people aren't interested. And again, given their past history, I would say that it's likely that we'll hear about it from time to time. There are lots of people in RIPE who take pride in their work, and there are few ways to express professional pride better than to tell others about what you do and why it's important to them. Nick From fweimer at bfk.de Tue Sep 2 09:08:45 2008 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:08:45 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <48BC58D7.3020200@birkenwald.de> (Bernhard Schmidt's message of "Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:04:23 +0200") References: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> <48BC58D7.3020200@birkenwald.de> Message-ID: <82od37gh36.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Bernhard Schmidt: > (PA has a recurring, for most networks not too small price tag > attached, PI is basically free) Is there a way around the scoring algorithm I don't know about? -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From gert at space.net Tue Sep 2 10:44:29 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 10:44:29 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <82od37gh36.fsf@mid.bfk.de> References: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> <48BC58D7.3020200@birkenwald.de> <82od37gh36.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: <20080902084429.GM25927@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 09:08:45AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Bernhard Schmidt: > > > (PA has a recurring, for most networks not too small price tag > > attached, PI is basically free) > > Is there a way around the scoring algorithm I don't know about? PI is currently scored in the year of assignment, and then never again, so it's not "fully free", but after the initial cost, it is - so the term "basically free" is appropriate. You can see this from the yearly "charging scheme" documents, e.g. the 2008 charging scheme document lists: ------------------- quote ---------------------- The scoring system takes into account all: * IPv4 allocations * IPv6 allocations The scoring system also takes into account any of the following assignments made at the request of the member between 1 October 2006 and 30 September 2007: * IPv4 Provider Independent (PI) assignments * IPv6 direct assignments * AS Number assignments ------------------- quote ---------------------- ("IPv6 direct assignments" are IXP and name server prefixes) As has been mentioned before: the address policy WG does not have the power to actually decide on the final charging scheme. We give input to the AGM (= annual general meeting of all NCC members), and the AGM decides on the final charging scheme to be implemented. So, regarding the *charging* component of 2007-01: the AGM can do this without 2007-01, or they can decide to not do anything about it, even with 2007-01 reaching consensus. The main point of 2007-01 is the *contract* component - and this is something the APWG needs to agree on. 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 berni at birkenwald.de Tue Sep 2 11:03:09 2008 From: berni at birkenwald.de (Bernhard Schmidt) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:03:09 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080902084429.GM25927@Space.Net> References: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> <48BC58D7.3020200@birkenwald.de> <82od37gh36.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <20080902084429.GM25927@Space.Net> Message-ID: <48BD014D.8060206@birkenwald.de> Hi, >>> (PA has a recurring, for most networks not too small price tag >>> attached, PI is basically free) >> Is there a way around the scoring algorithm I don't know about? > PI is currently scored in the year of assignment, and then never again, > so it's not "fully free", but after the initial cost, it is - so the > term "basically free" is appropriate. And even this initial cost are only scoring points. I work (among others) for a medium sized business ISP, with a /16, a /18 and a /32 IPv6 assigned a few years ago. This equals to around 500 scoring points which pushes us in the medium sized LIR category. http://www.ripe.net/membership/billing/procedure.html says I can use up to 864 scoring points before becoming a (more expensive) large LIR. This difference of 350 to be used scoring points allows me to request something around a /20 (16 * (2008-1992)) _per_ _year_ without paying a single cent more to RIPE. And hell, pay 1500 EUR more for one year (large category) and have ~5500 scoring points available. That's an insane amount of address space that will be totally free after one year. Bernhard From davidm at futureinquestion.net Tue Sep 2 22:05:29 2008 From: davidm at futureinquestion.net (David Monosov) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:05:29 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <48BC58D7.3020200@birkenwald.de> References: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> <48BC58D7.3020200@birkenwald.de> Message-ID: <48BD9C89.9050502@futureinquestion.net> Hi Bernhard, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > > To be honest, my intention to see 2007-01 put in action is to solve the > imbalance imposed by the current billing scheme (PA has a recurring, for > most networks not too small price tag attached, PI is basically free). > Don't tell me PI is not PA because you cannot assign it to other > endusers, there are dozens of ISPs that run entirely on PI. > The proposal itself states that end users will be subject to a fee. Based on your point above I take it that you favor interpreting this is "a non-trivial fee", and it seems to me that you implicitly suggest it should be higher than the costs the RIPE NCC will incur directly from processing such end user assignments. > Another goal, I might be sticking something into a hornet's nest here, > is to have a pricetag imposed on the only thing that costs money to all > service-providers worldwide, and that is routingslots. I've heard from a > lot of people who actually want this, but I don't see any technical sane > way to achieve it. The closest thing are recurring fees for PI space. I > know this doesn't handle deaggregation on it's own, but it's a start. > A point you further reinforce above. > Regarding the "new contract" thing. In my eyes, the cause with PIv4 is > lost anyway. I want this for PIv6 from the start, and for new PIv4 > assignments to be fair. If it is legally possible to push old resource > holders into contracts with recurring fees, do it, if it isn't then don't. > > So basically what I would like to see is the following: > - a recurring fee that is imposed to all PIv6 and new PIv4 assignments > - the contract might be with a LIR or with RIPE, with substantial higher > cost for dealing with RIPE directly > - there will be _no_ scoring system (categories or whatever) that lowers > the cost per assignment when a LIR/enduser is managing more of them. At > Dec. 31st every PI assignment in contractual relation with RIPE NCC > directly costs y EUR billed to the enduser, every PI assignment in > contractual relation with a LIR costs x EUR (0 < x < y) billed to the > LIR WITHOUT REBATE. The LIR can decide by itself how much it adds for > handling the contract when billing it to the enduser. This should take > care of the "Discount LIRs". > - there should be some contract with existing PI holders. If there is > consensus not to bill old assignments retroactively or if the legal > advisors decide it's too risky, fine with me. Have a contract to track > resources, but don't bill them. If however existing assignments are to > be transferred the normal contract should be required. > While you indeed address some of the concerns contained in my initial post, > So basically, bill new resources, get a sensible approach with old > resources and finally get PIv6 out of the door. > and while I don't see this draft as an explicit condition to getting IPv6 out the door (although I do see the benefits of doing so) and its intention is clear to me, > I think 2007-01 v4.0 is the right tool to do this, and I want to see > this soon. You may shoot now. you also raise another concern which I was somewhat reluctant to voice so far. The draft itself is reasonably concise and deals with little more than the need to set up a contractual relationship between either RIPE NCC or individual LIRs and end users. When looking at it in this limited scope, it indeed appears to have reached consensus and at the moment has few to no opposing arguments. The trouble, however, lies in the details. For example, while Shane's take on the implementation of this proposal is that it will result in no cost or minimal cost for end users - your interpretation seems to be one of an opportunity to enforce something akin to a routing slot tax which would be sufficiently high to discourage waste; two quite conflicting points of view stemming from the implementation of the the very same policy document! It's easy to dismiss these concerns as contractual, operational, and financial issues which are outside the policy scope of the proposal. However, the "carte blanche" nature of this policy draft differentiates it from most policy documents. Once this proposal is passed, the set of goals which will be achieved and the methods employed to achieve them can vary a great deal. Some of them are fairly controversial. Aggravating this concern further is the very nature of the WG work flow in that once this policy is approved and RIPE NCC is tasked with its implementation, it will lose some of its transparency by becoming an internal operational issue. This combination of factors makes the ultimate outcome of the implementation of this proposal somewhat hard to predict. Thus, I still feel this proposal could benefit from any combination of: - A list of arguments and counter-arguments the currently expected implementation is subject to, contained within the draft or as a separate document. - A commitment by RIPE NCC to consult this WG on an exceptional and ongoing basis if this proposal is passed to ensure the operational aspects are aligned with the goals of this WG's members and the community at large. - A set of more concrete draft documents describing the operational outcome from the implementation of this proposal in sufficient detail to allow a voting member to make an informed decision. > > Bernhard > -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov From berni at birkenwald.de Tue Sep 2 23:05:36 2008 From: berni at birkenwald.de (Bernhard Schmidt) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 23:05:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <48BD9C89.9050502@futureinquestion.net> References: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> <48BC58D7.3020200@birkenwald.de> <48BD9C89.9050502@futureinquestion.net> Message-ID: <20080902210536.GA6816@schleppi.birkenwald.de> On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:05:29PM +0200, David Monosov wrote: Hello, BTW, your v6 MX is down :-) > > To be honest, my intention to see 2007-01 put in action is to solve the > > imbalance imposed by the current billing scheme (PA has a recurring, for > > most networks not too small price tag attached, PI is basically free). > > Don't tell me PI is not PA because you cannot assign it to other > > endusers, there are dozens of ISPs that run entirely on PI. > The proposal itself states that end users will be subject to a fee. Based on > your point above I take it that you favor interpreting this is "a non-trivial > fee", and it seems to me that you implicitly suggest it should be higher than > the costs the RIPE NCC will incur directly from processing such end user > assignments. I was thinking of about 100 EUR/y. This is not community consensus or has been discussed anywhere, this is the amount of money I thought of a couple of years ago (before 2007-01) when thinking about a model for IPv6 PI. I have accepted that we need some sort of PI, but noone wants the same swamp "everyone who tells a few fairy tales gets free space without any contractual relation" space that was there with IPv4 already. So we discussed a model similar to a domain registrar, with recurring fee paid by the enduser. If it's not paid it expires. Of course it isn't that easy for IP addresses, as you cannot revoke an announcement another ASN is doing that easily. Basically the yearly invoice should start people thinking about whether they still need that resource. Maybe they've merged a decade ago and the only device still using the old address space is the old 9pin dot-matrix printer in the basement. Maybe something else that can be easily renumbered. Maybe it's free already. I've seen "networks" claiming to multihome that run two tunnels through their dynamic SOHO DSL line. Or it seems to be a sport for a number of people in this business to air their own prefix and even ASN, even though they only have their Xbox and their laptop in it and peer with their workplace and a colleague. They won't let go of this, but at least they should be reminded that eats a FIB slot everywhere. On the other hand, whoever _needs_ to be multihomed or _needs_ to avoid renumbering should be able to do that. Serious multihoming is more expensive than the number I had in mind (physical diversity, anyone?). If your network is sufficiently complex that renumbering it takes a long time (=is "expensive" work), then you can invest the money into PI to avoid it as well. And no, I don't believe in that whole "emerging market, we can't pay it, you're killing our industry and our democracy with it" thing that someone is probably going to raise (or at least think). > > So basically, bill new resources, get a sensible approach with old > > resources and finally get PIv6 out of the door. > and while I don't see this draft as an explicit condition to getting IPv6 out > the door (although I do see the benefits of doing so) and its intention is clear > to me, I do. I will raise hell against any PIv6 proposal that does not include some serious contractual relation with the enduser, and nothing forces updated contact information better than a yearly invoice to be paid. > The trouble, however, lies in the details. For example, while Shane's take on > the implementation of this proposal is that it will result in no cost or minimal > cost for end users - your interpretation seems to be one of an opportunity to > enforce something akin to a routing slot tax which would be sufficiently high to > discourage waste; two quite conflicting points of view stemming from the > implementation of the the very same policy document! I don't think 100 EUR/y would be "sufficiently high to discourage (deliberate) waste". It should force people to think about it. Every year when they receive their invoice. Apart from the few hardcore people that think it's their goddamn right to have their appartment network in every FIB worldwide it's a price vs. gain thing for most. At the moment the price is very low, often not directly associated with the resource at all. Thus even a very low gain or no gain at all is enough to keep the resource unchanged (not necessarily "used"). I want endusers to start thinking about this. Again, this number is my personal private opinion, it hasn't really been discussed with anyone. But yes, people expect different things of 2007-01, as with every policy. This is what I'm personally expecting/hoping. But I could not tell whether I'm voicing the single dissenting opinion or people actually agree with my arguments. Bernhard From gert at space.net Thu Sep 4 10:43:03 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:43:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080902210536.GA6816@schleppi.birkenwald.de> References: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> <48BC58D7.3020200@birkenwald.de> <48BD9C89.9050502@futureinquestion.net> <20080902210536.GA6816@schleppi.birkenwald.de> Message-ID: <20080904084303.GF25927@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 11:05:36PM +0200, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > But yes, people expect different things of 2007-01, as with every > policy. This is what I'm personally expecting/hoping. But I could not > tell whether I'm voicing the single dissenting opinion or people > actually agree with my arguments. Actually I'd like to hear a few more voices regarding this latest version of 2007-01 (v4). We have deliberatly set a fairly short discussion phase to be able to get it *done*, finally, before Dubai, so please voice your opinions now. *Especially* if you have voiced your support for v3 before (or your worries about it), a few lines about v4 would be helpful. Is this properly addressing your concerns? Can you live with the result? Regarding David Monosov's concerns: this proposal has been discussed extensively on three (3) RIPE meetings now, and on the mailing list, so I think all the potential problems it brings have been discussed, and since the APWG mailing list is open to everybody (not only LIRs), everyone affected had a chance to comment on it. If you agree with the general direction, and just have worries about the wording of the "counter arguments" section in the formal proposal, I would tend to *not* do another round (to version 5) of this - the "counter arguments" section is basically there to take acknowledge some of the problematic spots, but it's not really affecting the actual implementation. So this would just delay things further, without real change. (If you think that the whole proposal is very bad, and you disagree with the general intention, by all means say so, of course!) Regarding IPv6 PI: in the discussion regarding this, the mandate was clear: 'we want/need IPv6 PI, but only in a controlled manner, and contracts + recurring fee seem to be the only way to tackle this'. We will restart the discussion on the IPv6 PI proposal as soon as 2007-01 is done (one way or the other). 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 filiz at ripe.net Thu Sep 4 13:37:36 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:37:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-05 New Policy Proposal (Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM) Message-ID: <20080904113736.523DC2F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2008-05 Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-05.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 2 October 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From gert at space.net Thu Sep 4 14:02:48 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 14:02:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-05 New Policy Proposal (Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM) In-Reply-To: <20080904113736.523DC2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20080904113736.523DC2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20080904120248.GA87130@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 01:37:36PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-05.html I want to point out a technicality that came up in an offline discussion about this proposal. The actual *text* to be changed is in conflict with the text introduced (but not yet policy) of 2007-01. The idea behind the proposal is *not* in conflict with 2007-01. So a bit of "sequential processing" is needed - the specific wording for this proposal will need to be adapted if 2007-01 becomes policy in the meantime. But first of all, let's hear your thoughts about the idea behind this. 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 jim at rfc1035.com Thu Sep 4 14:16:11 2008 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:16:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] comments on 2008-05 Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM Message-ID: <3164716A-0C0D-4965-BB71-E91C0981EA55@rfc1035.com> I am broadly supportive of the principle behind this proposal. However the detail needs some refinement IMO. It's not clear what is meant by "Tier-0/1" or even "ENUM". This needs to be clarified. I think we all know what we mean by these terms. But the proposal does not define them or incorporate a definition by reference. My worry here is that if "ENUM" in particular is not defined, the proposal as written opens up a pandora's box. Does it apply *exclusively* to the public e164.arpa tree? If not, which other flavours of ENUM does the proposal cover? I'm thinking here of potential implementations of Infrastructure ENUM which could be done either on the public Internet or behind closed doors between telcos: should these be entitled to a /24 for anycasting too? Let's say two telcos implement some form of Infrastructure ENUM for cross-operator routing. Will this proposal mean they will both be entitled to a /24 for their respective ENUM trees? Since telcos tend to use bi-lateral agreements, there is the prospect here of forests of ENUM trees. Each telco could well have a tree for each telco it has a bi-liateral agreement for Infrastructure ENUM and each of these trees could be entitled to a /24 for anycasting. From filiz at ripe.net Mon Sep 8 09:59:03 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 09:59:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-04 - IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs. Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Proposal 2007-04, Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet Registries, was accepted by the RIPE community in September 2007. This proposal has since reached consensus in all other RIR regions and it was also ratified by ICANN. Therefore, the proposal is now in effect as a global policy. You can find the policy documented at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-416.html Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From filiz at ripe.net Mon Sep 8 15:08:01 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:08:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-03 Proposal Accepted (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space) Message-ID: <20080908130801.BDAC42F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2008-03 Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2008-03 has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-03.html A new RIPE Document has also been published to document this new policy: ripe-436, "Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-436.html Please note that this is a global policy and will therefore come into effect only after it has been accepted as a policy in all other RIR regions and then ratified by ICANN. Thank you for your input. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From slz at baycix.de Tue Sep 9 08:57:57 2008 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:57:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <48B401AE.7050706@ripe.net> References: <48B401AE.7050706@ripe.net> Message-ID: <48C61E75.4070608@baycix.de> Hi all, Ana Matic schrieb: > PDP Number: 2007-01 > Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC > > Dear Colleagues, > > The text of the policy proposal 2007-01 has been revised based on the > latest community feedback. > We have published the new version (version 4) today. As a result a new > Review Phase is set for > the proposal. [...] > We encourage you to review this revised policy proposal and the draft > documents > and send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 September > 2008. i'm beginning to think about stopping my support for this proposal and abandoning it since it takes way too long to be implemented after reading the latest discussion about this one. It appears to me that it might be easier to just do some wording change on all the other policies which are waiting for this one to be implemented and go on without any contractual stuff at all again. [several lines of cursing intentionally deleted] Last chance to get this implemented now before something bad like abandoning the idea about a contractual relationship with End-Users _WILL_ happen: I still support the general idea behind the 2007-01 policy proposal and like it to be implemented in this draft ASAP. I'm also happy about someone handing in another policy proposal about how he/she absolutely dislikes the implemented one and suggesting changes right after it got implemented - go on and discuss forever. I actually will join in any discussion about the price-tag or some other details of contract suggestions or whatever then. (And yes, i actually read the current policy draft and am not just repeating my support over and over for... how long now?) -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ======================================================================== From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Tue Sep 9 16:06:38 2008 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:06:38 +0100 Subject: Fwd: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: References: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> <48BC58D7.3020200@birkenwald.de> <48BD9C89.9050502@futureinquestion.net> <20080902210536.GA6816@schleppi.birkenwald.de> <20080904084303.GF25927@Space.Net> Message-ID: I'm sorry, I meant to send this to the list, "out loud" rather than as an aside to Gert. ------- Forwarded message ------- From: "Niall O'Reilly" To: "Gert Doering" Cc: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:44:25 +0100 On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:43:03 +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > Actually I'd like to hear a few more voices regarding this latest version > of 2007-01 (v4). We have deliberatly set a fairly short discussion phase > to be able to get it *done*, finally, before Dubai, so please voice your > opinions now. V4 seems fine to me. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly University College Dublin IT Services From gert at space.net Fri Sep 12 16:10:48 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:10:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE 56: Address Policy WG minutes (DRAFT) Message-ID: <20080912141048.GI18995@Space.Net> Hi fellow APWG members, Susannah and Alex at the RIPE NCC have done a great job in writing the minutes for the last APWG meeting (at the RIPE meeting in Berlin). Below you'll find the *draft* minutes. Please send me your comments, if needed, so we can amend potential mistakes and declare the minutes final at the next RIPE meeting. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ----- Forwarded message from Susannah Gray ----- RIPE 56 Address Poilicy Working Group Minutes Wednesday 7 June, 11:00-12:30 Thursday 8 June, 09:00-11:30 Chair: Gert Doering Scribe:Alex le Heux (RIPE NCC) Jabber: Kjell Leknes (RIPE NCC) Agenda ----------- A. Administrative Matters (selecting a scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) Approve Minutes ----------------------- Minutes from RIPE 55 were approved. There were no comments. Agenda Bashing There were no changes to the agenda. B. Overview of concluded proposals B.1 2007-07, "End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs" Withdrawn, replaced by 2008-03 B.2 2007-06, "Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4" Withdrawn, replaced by 2008-03 B.3 2005-08, "Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment an Utilisatio" Change of /48 to "LIR's choice", /56, and HD-Ratio Accepted B.4 2007-03, "IPv4 Countdown Policy" Withdrawn, replaced by 2007-06/2007-07, replaced by 2008-03 B.5 2007-04, "IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs" Accepted, currently in ASO AC review Gert asked an ASO AC representative to give an update. Wilfried Woeber (Address Council) said that the fact that the Policy Development Process (PDP) has been followed for global policies should be documented. He explained that this report has been constructed and was sent at end of April under the leadership of Fernando Obispo and that it is now in the editorial queue at the NRO, so we need to make sure the wording is compatible with the MoU. This should be done in a few days. He added that the content is done, now it needs editing and the chair will formally send it to ICANN. This will occur in a matter of days. C. New Proposals since RIPE 55 C.1 2008-0, "Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder" [Presentation Url?] Lutz Donnerhacke Michael Dillon (BT) said that he was concerned that this could damage the the routing table by encouraging a large number of PI anouncements that otherwise would not be there. He added that no one should get addresses unless they agree to accept them, so database entries should not be made without some communications. When you apply for addresses the agreement is there, as an application has been submitted. There should be a mechanism to communicate with the end-user to make sure they understand. Lutz said that admin contacts could be e-mailed. Nick Hilliard (Inex) said that he was unclear on what problem is going to be solved. The current mechanism for LIR allocations is easy: send e-mail to hostmaster at ripe.net and ask, and they will allocate you a range. From this point of view proposal 2008-02 is pointless. Gert Doering stated that this is a discussion about 2008-01, not 2008-02. Nick continued that he agreed with Michael. There is no contract here. There is no indication that the end-user even wants it. He added that this will conflict with proposal 2007-01, which implements a payment system. He suggests that if IP addresses are handed to to end-users and then money demanded, it will put the RIPE NCC in a difficult position. Bill Manning (ARIN) said that Trudy Prins (RIPE NCC) and Randy Bush (IIJ) both talked about address ownership. He said that he saw the RIPE NCC handing property to people, property that becomes taxable. He said that he didn't want the liability of getting property that he doesn't want. Forcing this on people is something that the RIPE NCC shouldn't do. Lutz said there is PI space for IPv4, which can be consisdered as property. It's the same thing today. Marco Hogewonging (XS4ALL) asked if it had considered that auto assign interferes with IPv6 deployment? If we assign lots of blocks to everyone without people asking for it, we will end up with 0.0001% being visible and routed. Lutz said that it was already suggested to ask first, which is a good idea. Raymond Jetten (Elisa Oyj) asked about changing the proposal in this way: Give out IPv6 PI to the ones that have IPv4 PI? Lutz said that he does not like PI space at all and that we should tell customers to give up PI for PA space. He added that he did not want to give advantage to current IPv4 PI space holders. Raymond said that maybe people could get old PI back. Peter Koch (DENIC) said that at DENIC is a last resort registry and that he is acting as 'chief historian', guiding innocent colleagues though inetnums from the 80s. He continued that he appreciated the optimism about the accuracy of RIPE Database, but does not share it. There are a lot of errors in there. There might be a lot of dirty work to do. Proposal 2008-01 is thus useless from practical perspective. He added that it is being proposed to apply 1989 eligibility criteria of PI space to IPv6 PI space. Much of the old stuff isn't routed today and hasn't been for a long time. We should not make the same mistakes again that were made 18 years ago. Wilfried Woeber said that he did the last resort registry for Albania. He said he hasn't made up his mind about the core of the suggestion. He added that he has a problem with the argument in favour when you start pointing to headlines in the press. The PDP should not be influenced at all by anything that's put in the press. We know about quality of headlines, there is no direct relationship between that kind of publicity and the reality of the internet. James Rice (Jump Networks) said that this discussion may be more for the RIPE Routing Working Group rather than the Address Policy Working Group, but it is relevant here too. He asked if people were aware that a lot of DSL customers are registered as /30s? Did you consider 2.5M extra routes and the churn that this creates? The operational impact there sounds quite bad. Currently, with a few 100k prefixes, we see some hijacking, when you have 2.5 M there and try to keep contact information up to date, it sounds like administative nightmare. Lutz said that this is an interesting problem. He added that he did not think that many routes will appear and that he was surprised that no one in the audience is claiming that PI space is unnecessary. Gert said that no decisions are made at RIPE Meetings. The sessions are for comments from audience. There is no overwhealming consensus to go forward, so this will be discussed afterwards and we will decide how to proceed. C.2 2008-02 - Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR [URL?] Lutz said he would like to change this proposal, as was suggested on the mailing list, to not make assignments, but to send an e-mail to ask if they want an assignment. If they reply 'yes', they will get one. Gert said that there was a comment from Nick already about giving people things they don't ask for but will get a bill for later and that this is perhaps not a good idea. Marco Hoogewoning (XS4ALL) said that, as we can get IPv6 now, shouldn't we just abandon this and ask the RIPE NCC to mail everyone a big flyer or e-mail that the 200 rule is gone and it's much easier now instead of changing this policy? Gert said that this was an interesting plan and is proactive. Lutz said that this is not a policy change, this is for a one time operation. Marco said that what Lutz is saying is that everyone should get an e-mail to say that if you want your addresses, you can get them here. That's what current policy says, if you want your addresses, you can get them by sending an e-mail to hostmaster. Leo Vegoda (ICANN) said that he sent two mails to the list. The first asked about the billing implications. The RIPE NCC sent an e-mail. It said that everyone's count goes up, so there won't be an impact on billing. It's all proportional. The second is about the RIPE NCC inviting people to get an allocation, those that take them up then get one. That has billing implications. It's sort of like actively selling address space. Do we want to run that system this way? Try to make sales? Gert said that this is a good argument. We are caught between promoting and not promoting. Kurtis Lindqvist (Netnod) added that he thought people want IP address space because of need. There seems to be a slow uptake. He said that he failed to see what is gained by banging people on the head with an IPv6 block. People who haven't deployed IPv6 don't need it. The theshhold in the portal is low. Do you think removing this makes it really easier? Hans Petter Holen (Visma IT AS) asked if the policy needs to be changed in order to get more people to get addresses? There is no real barrier anymore. The question is what level of marketing should we do? He said that the group could spend all morning raising awareness. Is that raising awareness or marketing? It's the same thing. It is a good idea that we suggest to the RIPE NCC that they send more information to their members that there is IPv6 for them and how to get it. We do that at these meetings, and at trainings. Maybe direct mailings, newletters, maybe during normal contact with hostmasters. There are levels we can use here without making it marketing. James Rice (Jump Networks) added that he could sympathise with technical people at Local Internet Registries (LIRs) that cannot get permission becase they need management approval because of billing. How about making /32 free? Gert said that this is a decision for the RIPE NCC General Meeting. Rop Blokzijl (RIPE Chair) said that this is a solution, but what was the problem? The problem that is being suggested doesn't exist. They can get addresses. It all comes down to a glorified PR exercise. We should never give people what they didn't ask for. If people still think there is a high barrier, we are lacking in our information provisioning. Maybe the RIPE NCC Member Update could carry yet another article on how you get an IPv6 block. That is probably as effective as any verison of this proposal, without the dangerous side effect of handing out address blocks to people who don't want them. Gert stated that there was no consensus here either. We seem to have consensus on giving a message to the RIPE NCC to be more pro-active in telling people how to do it. C.3 2008-03 - Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space IPv4 countdown policy, revisited [?] D. "Contracts and Certification session, part 1" D.1 2007-01 - Wrap up, next steps, comments from the NCC board Gert mentioned that he had some updates on the PDP. He said there was a last call that ended on Monday this week. Formally, it is now out of the hands of the AP WG. It is now in the hands of the collective WG Chairs to determine if there is consensus. It is being discussed, there is no final outcome yet and it will be discussed for a few more days. If it goes into a policy, which is likely, then the next thing is that the General Meeting will discuss it and the statutes will be changed. There is a General Meeting today, if you are RIPE NCC Member, please go there. It will come up. It won't be possible to make a decision today as this needs invitation letters. It can be discussed and voted on in Dubai. Parallel, the RIPE NCC can start planning the implementation. Michael Dillon (BT) said that BT was in favour of this proposal. He asked if the implementation could be seperated into two phases: future PI assignments immediately on contracts before all historic ones are done. Gert said that this is the plan. Rob Blokzijl |(RIPE Chair) asked if there is now a version that has these refinements in it. Nick Hilliard (Inex) said that the proposal is in final stages of Last Call. The current proposal doesn't have all the subtelties in, as those are implementation issues. The community expectation is that the RIPE NCC goes with the suggestions. Axel Pawlik (RIPE NCC) said that he agrees and that the RIPE NCC likes a challenge. This has has been one already and the Executive Board has discussed this. He added that the RIPE NCC can implement it as Nick has put it forward and it's good prectice to look at articles of association. The proposal can be implemented via Associate Membership of the RIPE NCC. ACTION ON RIPE NCC (1): Help to draft a contract framework for the LIR - End User. Because there are over 5000 LIRs, and they all have a lawyer, it's not useful to have them all start from scratch. Include things that must be in there and can be adapted to local law. Axel said that he would hesitate to provide contractual frameworks to so many different LIRs in different countries. He said he would like to provide principles. Gert said that this would be ok and something that he could give to a lawyer. Action on RIPE NCC (2): Formally bring ongoing policy issues to the General Meeting. D.2 proposal coming out of the Certification Authority (CA) TF Nigel Titley http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-56/presentations/Titley-Initial_Certification_Policy_Proposal.pdf Gert said that the proposal says that an LIR can ask for a certificate for PA space. What is the plan for AS Numbers and PI space? Nigel said that this proposal only covers PA space. This proposal would either have to be extended for PI space and ASNs or a new one made. Gert said that as we will soon have a framework for End-User contracts, if a contract exists, one should be able to get certificate. Nigel said that If a contract exists, there is no reason not to have a contract. Hans Petter Holen (Visma IT AS) said that we could move ahead with this and modify it later when we have some experience. He said this shouldn't be stopped while waiting for other things. Gert said that if this is worded carefully, like "If there is a contact you can get certificate" then it would make it automatic. Antoin Verchuren (SIDN) asked what happens when there is an LIR with PI space. Nigel said that if there is a contract, there is no problem in issuing a certificate. Michael Dillon asked if the certificates are the same as the certificates used to allow/disallow BGP announcements. Nigel said they were. Michael said that if a substantial number of LIRs have these certificates, and their BGP is filtered based on certificates, and if an LIR's budget for being a RIPE NCC member is held in some unimportant corner of the company and they fail to pay on time, suddenly their internet access could get shut off. Nigel said that yes, this could happen. Michael asked if this was "securing the routing system". Nigel said that is also called "getting your payment system working". Michael asked if it was appropraite to make those running the LIR request certificates? Should this be higher up in the company, say legal council, CFO? Nigel said that this would be an internal business process. Michael added that there are well run, less well run and poorly run companies. Everyone's network should function. We do not want people to disappear because someone forgot to pay their bill. One might make the legal argument that the RIPE NCC is damaging companies by allowing them to shoot themselves in the foot. There is a potential downside. Nigel said that there is always a potential downside to not paying your bills. Gert said that he saw the point. There might be a problem, but we might want to encourage timely payment. The RIPE NCC is not so strict on this. Lutz Donnerhacke (IKS GmbH Jena) said that he had the same question about unroutable entities when the certificate is broken. Yes it's intentional, the routing system should withdraw routes that are not certified. Daniel Karrenberg (RIPE NCC) said that Michael's concerns are valid. When the RIPE NCC and the Certification Task Force looked into this it came up. It is clear that a lot of education needs to be done to tell people what it is that they are getting in to. That is part of the program. Nigel is also correct. How this is handled internally in companies is an internal business matter. We can make suggestions, but it is not up to the RIPE NCC to dictate how certificates are being used. If what Lutz wants is implemented, it only happens when ISPs want it. Daniel added that his personal opinion was that, after talking to ISPs about critical resource management, ISPs will be very careful with this. I see this evolving as certificates being used for provisioning first. Only when there is confidence they will be used for stuff which is closer to real time. Hans Petter said that routing policy between ISPs is not dictated by what we do here. Looking at this from the other side, when there are no certificates, anyone can announce anything and destroy business. On the other hand, I'm quite sure that all these telcos know how to cut of their customers if they don't pay their bills. Gert said that certificates give people the ability to perform route origin checking. If it is only used for ISPs towards their customers we already have a win situation. There are some concerns about the specific implementation, but that is not really part of the policy. He added that he thought we should go forward and make it a formal policy proposal. Nigel said that that the wording could be adjusted to apply to objects other than just PA space. Thursday, 09:00-11:30 ================== Proposals 2008-01 and 2008-02 have been withdrawn by the author. E.1 2006-01, "Provider Independent IPv6 Assignment for End User Organizations" Gert Doering summarised the discussions so far. He added that comments would be collected and then Jordi Palet Martinez (Consulintel) would adjust the proposal. James Rice (Jump Networks) said that IPv6 PI space is needed for multihoming. A /48 is a good size. It should be big enough so that they don't need a second one. A larger / could be given if justified. Wilfried Woeber said that he was not speaking in favour or against. He continued that first, there are differences in regions. It is not a global proposal, just regional. In the RIPE region, if we decide not to follow the others, things will be fine. He continued that, with his Address Council hat on, if there is a feeling in the community that this should be globally coordinated, then it should be a global proposal. Otherwise, it's fine that things are done here that other regions don't do or the other way around. The other observation is that almost all restrictions in the regular policy for getting IPv6 adress space have been removed. At the LIR/ISP level there is not much difference. It shows up in the routing table. There is also a special IX policy. He said that he did not really see in the long run why three, four or five special forms of distribution would be needed. Gert said that it's not a global policy. He explained that there has been feedback on lists that having fairly major differences between regions is annoying. For example, organisations could say "If we just had our headquarters in different regions we could do business in a very different way...". He added that it could be useful to try to align policy. Gert continued that an LIR could get a /32. For some enterprises this is hard, because being an LIR is expensive. For others it is not so hard, but there is a hurdle to declaring them as an ISP when they really are not. On the other hand, a routing table slot is just a routing table slot. But also, if they need /48, why give them more? Jordi said that when he started working on this in different regions he started with a /32. Then in several regions there were comments that a /32 was too big. The final policy approved was a /48 in AfriNIC. There has been some discussion in AfriNIC, and the the staff realised that all /48s get filtered and they can't sort it out. He said when the size is decided on, there may be the risk of the prefixes not routed correctly. He proposed that a small change is made in how the proposal is used in LACNIC and then split the proposal into two proposals: one for organisations that already have IPv4 PI space so that they can get IPv6 PI space as well; and one that asks for extra justifications for those that start new and do not have PI space. Gert said that he did not like this idea and that he would prefer an IPv6 policy that is not tied to IPv4, otherwise people might use IPv4 just to get IPv6. Marc Groeneweg (SIDN) said that, as the .nl registry cannot deploy IPv6 now, he was in favour of this proposal, so that there can be independence from ISPs. Gert said that SIDN could become an LIR and get a /32. Marc said that the main objective is to get .nl running and not be an ISP or an LIR. Marco Hoogewoning (XS4ALL) said that, regarding /48s being filtered, he thought that routing or other administrative purposes should not be a reason to get a bigger block and that there should not be special cases. He said that PI space is needed anyway. The /32s of today are the "Class A" of tomorrow. Gert said that, regarding special cases, a decent PI space policy is necessary. Wilfried said that with the changes that are on the way, the distinction between being LIR and not being LIR should be forgotten in regard to IPv4 PI space with contracts. He continued that the reality would be that, if you hold resources, you must have a contract with someone, with either an LIR or the RIPE NCC. He said he did not see what's so bad about being an LIR and that in the future you may have to have a formal relationships with the RIPE NCC anyway. He continued that what this is called doesn't matter and this was discussed that in the RIPE NCC General Meeting. Being an LIR is not a big workload. The requirement to have customers is already gone, you can just get the block of adddresses. Peter Wyatt (HP) said that a /48 wouldn't be big enough for HP. He said that he could document the need. He said that that HP does not want to register as an LIR and need a documented approach between PA space and PI space. Otherwise there will be organisations that have historic space that should not be LIR. Gert said that he had seen HP's prefixes and asked if he could second that ISPs are filtering your announcements or is it mostly working? Peter said that it could be argued that no organisation would need more than a /48. Gert asked if he had seen that /48s work? Or are they filtered? Peter Wyatt said that this works right now in terms of our ARIN and APNIC allocations. He said that HP wants to try to get a /43 PI space from the RIPE NCC as well. Gordon Lennox (European Commission) said that he hears the word "enterprise" but there is another community called "governments". They have no business models and need their own IPv6 space. Arien Veijn (AMSIX) said that AMSIX only has PI space for peering LAN and not for it's services. He said that they are a neutral organisation by nature but would like to have IPv6. Becoming an LIR just to get IPv6 space doesn't feel right. He said that AMSIX gets space through an LIR as the system was designed like that. It would be no problem to have a formal relationship with the RIPE NCC or an LIR. Michael Dillon (BT) said that he has helped companies get PI space in the RIPE and ARIN regions. There really is need, in some cases, for space that's registered in a global registry, such as for financial services for example. He said that when IP addressing and LIR creation began, it was clear that there were two types of need. One type is fixed need with no growth and the other need is ISPs with constant growth and expansion. With IPv6, there may be limits to growth. He continued that things have been divided so that the LIR is the receipient of the large block and is expected to grow. The PI space holder is not expected to grow so if we change the way we do things with IPv6 so that PI space is not really the small size and a /32 is not always for ISPs, he thinks there can be a rational system with more slots for an applicant to fit into. Gert asked if banks want global unique space with their name that is not routed? Michael said that banks do transactions between themselves and that these do not happen on the public Internet. A company like HP doesn't want /48s, /49s, /50s and so on, but HP is not an LIR but it functions like an ISP. He added that there are now three sizes: a /56 for really small users, /48 for any other customer of ISP and PI space and then there is a /32 for the big organisations like universities or ISPs. He suggested this could be extended to non-LIRs, on the same terms as for the smaller organisations. Ruediger Volk (DTAG) said that he was interested in keeping an eye on the effect on routing slots. He said that large scale uncontrolled PI space will create problems in the routing system and that this should be dealt with in the policy even though it is essentially the problem of the operators. He said that he saw three conditions where it doesn't pose a problem: it doesn't show up in routing system and problems with PI space that is mandatorily renumbered every two or three years can be minimised and then cleaned it up. Gert said that regarding unbounded growth, the contracts on the way. Ruediger agreed, and said that he wanted to state that everything mentioned that threatens to keep people from signing contracts is actually already a feature. He said that he was surprised that the EU Commission or HP or organisations of that size would feel threatened by the request to enter into a contract. Those large organisations have explicit IT service organsiations and it could be argued that they have an internal ISP. He said he did not want to see the notion that PI space is available in cases where it is needed but that it is not for everyone. Martin List-Petersen (Airwire) said that, for PI space, saying that everyone could sign up as LIR doesn't solve the routing table issue. He said that for PI space, he thinks this is needed. It has something to do with IPv4 stewardship and added that if IPv6 PI space comes, he is in favour of having contracts. Gert said that this is there. Martin said that from the routing table point of view, forcing organisations to become an LIR doesn't solve aything. James said that he got the impression that HP, I got the impression wants a /44 an asked if this was because of announcing /48s from different unconnected sites. It is important that when they make their request there is space for people to say how they will route it, so that can be taken in to account, and people can make filters. If they intend to announce /48s, it must come from that block and not one that has a /32 minimum allocation size. Marco said that from a global perspective, it's already there. If we formalise this, he can filter and other people can be educated about filtering. It will give a framework for filtering. He added that a way for people to get space without being an LIR should be found. Ruediger said that prefix length filtering will not meet the security requirements of a large scale IPv6 network. Gert said that he heard no fundamental opposition to the proposal and lots of voices that say there is a benifit. He said there was some concern about getting the mechanics right and, as decisions are not made at the meeting, there is enough input to start a new round with the document. He said that the document will be sent to the mailing list and input is needed. E.2 2006-05, "PI Assignment Size" Gert Doering (Chair) explained that the proposal will be sent back to the mailing list and discussion restarted and asked if anyone objected. No one objected. F. "End of IPv4" session F.4 2008-03, "Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-56/presentations/Gagliano-Global_Policy_Allocation_of_Remaining_IPv4_Space.pdf /8 reservations to RIRs Roque Gagliano Michael Dillon(BT) said that he thought that this was a really bad idea and it moves the point at which IPv4 becomes hard to get closer to us in time. Most people are not concerned about IPv4 exhaustion, but abbout the effects. Gert Doering (Chair) said that for big regions the financial impact is only a few months, for small regions where they really do not have money to upgrade at all, the impact is big. Michael asked if Gert was trying to sell this as a global aid plan for less developed regions? Gert said that it is not his job to sell anything and that he just wants to point out that there are arguments for and against it. Michael commented that the general perception of this is of people playing around with numbers. Yours is the first that ties it to a real world concern. Roque Gagliano (LACNIC) said that the number of ISPs that consume a lot of addresses is very small. This policy helps because it brings certainty about when the last /8 will happen. At LACNIC there are now proposals about what to do with that last /8. The other thing is, it's a strong message to those outside the RIR community that it's not business as usual but that we are doing something special. Daniel Karrenberg (speaking as private citizen) said that people should keep in mind the actual playout of this and whether you can enforce the policies that you are making. He said he had concerns that if the only substantial amounts of IPv4 are located in smaller regions, someone from a larger region may find a policy-compliant way to obtain that address space. It's easy to find a legal entity. He continued that a similar thing applies to all policies that set aside space for special uses, like dual stack. Hans Petter Holen (speaking as private citizen) said that what we are facing is the end of something. There are two extremes: either we keep policies the same and hit the wall; or we try to do the sensible thing. He said that it's hard to figure out what the right thing to do is. Unless very strict regulation is enforced, it's going to be interesting to see what everyone is going to do. Gert said that this discussion should be taken to the mailing list. F.3 2007-09, "Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-56/presentations/Hain-IPv4CooperativeDistribution.pdf Tony Hain IPv4 Cooperative Distribution Ruediger Volk (DTAG) said that there are RIRs that have national registries and asked what does theproposal mean about the pools that are sitting there? Should the RIRs that don't have national registries rush to create them? Tony said that this would be a defence mechanism. Wilfried Woeber asked why APNIC does not like this proposal. Tony Hain said that there was nothing concrete but that there was a specific instance where he was accused of racism and it was assumed that he was attacking specific regions. He said he was not. Wilfried said that he was surprised that a proposal did not get the proper treatment. Gert said that this case should not be discussed right now. Ray Palzak (ARIN) said that he wanted to comment about what happened at the ARIN Meeting and the status of this proposal in the ARIN region. He continued that there were 12 in favour, 25 against and that the Advisory Council recommended that this proposal is abandoned. Tony said that this was the original proposal and asked how many people were in favour of continuing to work on this. Ray said that this proposal was not alive in the ARIN region. Chris Morrow (Google) said that 'RIR shopping' happens today on a relatively large scale and said that he knew of at least two examples. Gert said that this is a more formalised way of doing things without people setting up subsidiaries all over the planet. An attendee said that large global corporations do this today. Chris said that there are organisations who have operations in California but have APNIC and RIPE NCC address space. Akinori Maemura (JPNIC/APNIC) said that he will check the situation but thought that the proposal did not have consensus at the time. APNIC has NIRs, but there is a shared pool at APNIC which serves the NIRs, so this is not a concern. Gert asked for a show of hands about the mechanics of the proposals. A few people thought that the general direction of the proposal was good. No one thought it was a bad idea. Gert commented that three-quarters of the room did not show their hands. Daniel said that it could be that they have no opinion. Gert concluded that there is some support, and some voices against and said that the proposal would be sent the mailing list for further discussion. F.1 Ongoing transfer policy http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-56/presentations/Yilmaz-Others_Transfer_Proposals.pdf Discussions in the other RIR regions Observing Others: Transfer Proposals Filiz Yilmaz (RIPE NCC) This presentation was given to provide an overview of the transfer proposals in other regions and to facilitate discussion in the RIPE region. There were no questions. F.2 2007-08, "Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-56/presentations/van_Mook-2007-08_update.pdf "The Market" proposal Remco van Mook (Virtu) 2007-08 update Gert Doering (Chair) said that people are doing transfers today. Not doing this will not stop it. This is to help the RIPE NCC keep track. Michael Dillon (BT) said that the thought this is a waste of time. The period in time is that the IPv4 is used up, so that most of it is in use and is not available for transfer. Most of it is allocated to a few large ISPs. These are companies that are constantly growing, so they won't sell it, and even if they did, it would cost too much to validate and check and get approval to release the addresses,making sure the left hand doens't give away what right hand needs. He said he did not see a lot of transfers happening at all. Remco van Mook (Virtu) said that not all organisations are as big as BT and that he did not expect to see /11s transfered through this policy. There are actually quite a few people who would like to get their hands on a /20 and so there needs to be a mechanism to get that administered properly. Andy Davidson (LONAP) said that he supported this because it allows documentation of the changes that will happen. He asked if PA space must not have any assignments in it when it is transfered. Remco said that this proposal is only for allocated and unassigned space and that is because he thought it would be the easiest to address. He said that PI space could be included and allocated and assigned later. James Wilson (HEANet) said that he agreed that it would be difficult to free up space. Organisations need to move to IPv6, but in order to do that they still need some IPv4 space. This will take place at different rates in in diferent organisations. He continued that unless we do nothing, the only option is to provide the posibilties for one organisation to free it up quickly so another can use it. There is no other proposal besides this that can get us there. He stated that he supported this proposal. Tom Vest (RIPE NCC) asked if there had there been an evaluation of the legal implications of this. He said that if you take a common resource and transfer it to a private party, this is privitisation. It has huge tax and regulatory implications. Although this is an ambiguous case, there is a lot of economic doctrine about this. The substance of this is very close to privitisation and that probably merits careful review. Tom continued that when you associate the IPv4 resources with value and, if the value is substantial, you have the resource and you know it will be more valuable every day. It could create delaying migration incentives. Remco said that he thought it will be huge incentive for IPv6 to evolve. The entire IPv4 legacy space will be worthless eventually because everyone is on IPv6. It might take a while, but it will happen. If IPv6 is free and IPv4 is expensive, then there is automatic migration. Remco said that there is a legal and economic aspect, but that nothing can be done about that. People are doing transfers, we need to accept a framework. It is already a defacto standard. James Rice (Jump Networks) said that the minimum transfer is minimum allocation size, instead of minimum /8 allocation size and asked if Remco was sure he wanted that in the proposal? Remco said that by increasing the use, you will increase fragmentation. He said that we could stick to the minimum allocation size for the /8, but thought that there won't be a difference. He said that he would rather keep it simple and have a single number. Alain Bidron (France Telecom/ETNO) said that during the RIPE 55 Meeting a set of principles was presented and there was a followup. He said that there was a new common position on IPv4 exhaustion. This was published on the Address Policy mailing list. The main message is that before we support transfers, we have to carefully consider the impact of such a move. He said that he referred the audience to the position paper from ETNO and said that ETNO was not in a position to support this proposal. Remco said that it was fiction that this proposal creates a market. This is not true. This proposal will just document what is already there. Alain said that all impacts have to be carefully considered and analysed. It is a radical change. Remco said that if there were two more years to analyse it, we should do that, but we don't have two years left. He said that if we don't start implementing this it will be pointless. Therefore, we should move forward or abandon it. Daniel Karrenberg (RIPE NCC) said that Tom pointed out that if we privatise these resource it will have interesting consequences. It might actually increase those perverse incentives. He continued that If he was a big ISP and had lots of IPv4, it would prevent me from going to IPv4. If you look at ARIN/APNIC, at the differences, you might say is ARIN over-specifying. But what they are really trying to do is to keep the address space as public resource. You cannot transfer without the need being demonstrated beforehand. The APNIC and RIPE proposal says you can transfer but with one sentence: "the usual policies apply". He continued that, for example, the transferee does not have justified need and says "I sell you this address space" Do you think the RIR has a chance to go after them and say you don't need this. He said the thought this was fiction. Either come out and say "we privatise", otherwise it will bring the RIR in an untenable position. We can do this, and say this is just window dressing. He said that he was not saying that one is better than another but that we should be honest with ourselves. Roque Gagliano (LACNIC) said that this is also the view of the LACNIC Board: any transfer policy for legacy resources should be discussed amongst all RIR communities in a global basis. Gert concluded that the proposal would be sent to the mailing list for another round of discussion. Daniel said that we should listen to our LACNIC colleagues and ask if the regional policies should be better aligned then they are now. He said that maybe we should ask approporiate parts of PDPs to align themselves. Gert asked for a show of hands to see whether parts of the PDPs should be aligned across regions. There was a lot of support. ACTION ON RIPE NCC: Keep track of other regions PDPs and figure out if it's possible to align the proposals. Hand Petter Holen (Address Council) said that there is some work there for coordinating processes. He said he was not saying that the AC should do that, but there is some work there. Z. AOB ----- End forwarded message ----- -- 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 gert at space.net Fri Sep 12 16:49:39 2008 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:49:39 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Agenda items for RIPE 57 in Dubai? Message-ID: <20080912144939.GJ18995@Space.Net> Hi APWG members, the RIPE meeting in Dubai is coming near. This meetings' APWG time slots will take place on Tuesday and Wednesday, since the overall meeting has moved to start on Sunday (!). Our agenda will contain the usual stuff (concluded policy proposals, new policy proposals, etc.) - I'll send that stuff later. What I want to ask from you is to provide input on what you'd like to see discussed in Dubai, aside from the "usual stuff"? (Feel free to respond to me or my Co-Chair Sander Steffann in private, if you want to see something on the agenda but for some reason do not want to see your name besides it) regards, Gert Doering -- AWPG 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 lear at cisco.com Fri Sep 12 18:08:00 2008 From: lear at cisco.com (Eliot Lear) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:08:00 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Agenda items for RIPE 57 in Dubai? In-Reply-To: <20080912144939.GJ18995@Space.Net> References: <20080912144939.GJ18995@Space.Net> Message-ID: <48CA93E0.6030608@cisco.com> Gert, While I personally cannot attend RIPE 57, I would like to bring to your and this group's attention a paper that Bill Lehr, Tom Vest, and I have developed for TPRC which occurs in Washington DC at the end of next week. Tom may be available, and I do not know about Bill. The following was sent to ARIN's policy list, for your information. The paper is not at all limited to ARIN. Now please see below. -- We would like to bring to your attention a paper that Bill Lehr, Tom Vest, and I wrote for the upcoming TPRC conference, at the end of this month, the title of which is "Running on Empty: The Challenge of managing Internet addresses". The paper looks at transfer markets and specific proposals from the RIRs and provides pluses and minuses to the theoretical space, as well as some commentary on specific proposals. The authors concur that the results of the proposed market initiatives will likely depend on variety of identifiable parameters (e.g., specific transfer policy mechanisms, possible IPv4 reservation policies, secure inter-domain routing initiatives, etc.), but do not agree on the appropriate weighting of risks. In talking about specific RIR proposals we note extreme differences in what we presume to be the assumptions of the authors about ability to enforce regulations and the priorities that an RIR should have. We also look at the impact of transfer markets on IPv6 adoption, and to a lesser extent, on the interdependency between addressing and routing. We hope this paper is useful to continuing a dialog that leads to appropriate evolution of RIR policies. You can find it here or by going to www.tprc.org and looking at the detailed agenda for Saturday, along with several other interesting and related papers. Yours, Bill Lehr Tom Vest Eliot Lear From filiz at ripe.net Mon Sep 15 10:59:40 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:59:40 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Message-ID: <20080915085940.751FB2F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2007-01 Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2007-01 (version 4.0) is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 13 October 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Wed Sep 17 03:59:22 2008 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:59:22 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Message-ID: <20080917015922.GA3590@cilantro.c4inet.net> Hi, On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:43:03 +0100, Gert Doering gert at localhost wrote: > Actually I'd like to hear a few more voices regarding this latest version > of 2007-01 (v4). We have deliberatly set a fairly short discussion phase > to be able to get it *done*, finally, before Dubai, so please voice your > opinions now. I support the spirit of this proposal, but I have major issues with imple- mentation. Nick does brush this of as "operational", but that is where the rubber meets the road. Please also note that my concerns are really mostly with the future of PIv6 as PIv4 is really a lost cause in my opinion. At the end of the day my argument is really with barriers, such as fees: I'm not opposed to a recurring fee as such, but it needs to be low enough not to be a significant barrier to entry even to small businesses or pro-bono organisations such as OSS projects or charities. Actually, a case can be made for making the barriers a lot lower for PIv6, if only to speed it on its way to ubiquity ;) I've seen some mention of a "routing slot tax", I think this idea needs to be stepped on. Hard. Now. Besides, whom goes that "tax" to? $VENDOR? After all, everyone with PI space (multihoming assumed) has to carry full tables too, no? And those whose *business* it is to provide transit should surely have calcula- ted upgrades into the price of their service? I don't think that RIPE's func- tion is (or should be) to act as a tax collector for LIRs... I'm aware that the setting of fees is a function of the RIPE NCC and not the community at large, but the process of setting those fees is not transparent to me. OTOH, maybe it is better to leave the setting of fees to others than those who would want to tax the end-users for their incredible cheek in trying to break away from SP lock-in. Another possible barrier is justification. As far as v6 goes there should not be any need for that in the contractual process. IMO, "because I want it" should be all the justification needed for at least the initial PIv6 assignment. Having said all that, I think that keeping track of PI space *is* a good idea and bringing end-users into the RIPE community is an even better one. If the above issues can somehow be addressed, I would support 2007-01. Regards, Sascha Luck SLU3-RIPE From berni at birkenwald.de Wed Sep 17 04:34:06 2008 From: berni at birkenwald.de (Bernhard Schmidt) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:34:06 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080917015922.GA3590@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20080917015922.GA3590@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <48D06C9E.5070007@birkenwald.de> Hi, > I've seen some mention of a "routing slot tax", I think this idea needs to be > stepped on. Hard. Now. Besides, whom goes that "tax" to? $VENDOR? After all, > everyone with PI space (multihoming assumed) has to carry full tables too, no? No. Bernhard From sascha at c4inet.net Wed Sep 17 03:46:32 2008 From: sascha at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:46:32 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) Message-ID: <20080917014632.GB3164@cilantro.c4inet.net> Hi, On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:43:03 +0100, Gert Doering gert at localhost wrote: > Actually I'd like to hear a few more voices regarding this latest version > of 2007-01 (v4). We have deliberatly set a fairly short discussion phase > to be able to get it *done*, finally, before Dubai, so please voice your > opinions now. I support the spirit of this proposal, but I have major issues with imple- mentation. Nick does brush this of as "operational", but that is where the rubber meets the road. Please also note that my concerns are really mostly with the future of PIv6 as PIv4 is really a lost cause in my opinion. At the end of the day my argument is really with barriers, such as fees: I'm not opposed to a recurring fee as such, but it needs to be low enough not to be a significant barrier to entry even to small businesses or pro-bono organisations such as OSS projects or charities. Actually, a case can be made for making the barriers a lot lower for PIv6, if only to speed it on its way to ubiquity ;) I've seen some mention of a "routing slot tax", I think this idea needs to be stepped on. Hard. Now. Besides, whom goes that "tax" to? $VENDOR? After all, everyone with PI space (multihoming assumed) has to carry full tables too, no? And those whose *business* it is to provide transit should surely have calcula- ted upgrades into the price of their service? I don't think that RIPE's func- tion is (or should be) to act as a tax collector for LIRs... I'm aware that the setting of fees is a function of the RIPE NCC and not the community at large, but the process of setting those fees is not transparent to me. OTOH, maybe it is better to leave the setting of fees to others than those who would want to tax the end-users for their incredible cheek in trying to break away from SP lock-in. Another possible barrier is justification. As far as v6 goes there should not be any need for that in the contractual process. IMO, "because I want it" should be all the justification needed for at least the initial PIv6 assignment. Having said all that, I think that keeping track of PI space *is* a good idea and bringing end-users into the RIPE community is an even better one. If the above issues can somehow be addressed, I would support 2007-01. Regards, Sascha Luck SLU3-RIPE From shane at time-travellers.org Wed Sep 17 12:05:50 2008 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:05:50 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080917014632.GB3164@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20080917014632.GB3164@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <1221645950.17367.32.camel@shane-macbook-pro> Sascha, Your concerns are possibly reasonable (see details inline, after this introduction). But I have two main issues with your opposition: 1. The current system is, quite frankly, shit. It is embarrassing that the RIPE region has continued to put up with such a poorly managed way to track number resources. Any mechanism to track these resources is better than what we have now (which is NOTHING). 2. No policy is going to make everyone happy. We have worked at this for many months now (the proposal is 2007-01, not 2008-01). At some point we have to recognize that what we have is not perfect, but will ever be perfect, so we should adopt it anyway. To quote Voltaire: Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien (the perfect is the enemy of the good). On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 02:46 +0100, Sascha Luck wrote: > I'm not opposed to a recurring fee as such, but it needs to be low > enough not to be a significant barrier to entry even to small > businesses or pro-bono organisations such as OSS projects or > charities. Actually, a case can be made for making the barriers a lot > lower for PIv6, if only to speed it on its way to ubiquity ;) I think the RIPE community sets policies, but details - like specific fees - are implemented by the RIPE NCC. This is a good model and has worked for a long time. I trust the RIPE NCC will set reasonably low fees. If the "barrier" you want to remove for IPv6 is knowing who is actually using the address space, I think that you are misguided. That "barrier" needs to be firmly in place, before we end up with the same mess in IPv6 as we have in IPv4. > I've seen some mention of a "routing slot tax", I think this idea > needs to be stepped on. Hard. Now. Since this is not a part of the proposal justification or details (I think), we should not have to worry about it. I agree it sounds quite awful though. :) > Another possible barrier is justification. As far as v6 goes there > should not > be any need for that in the contractual process. IMO, "because I want > it" should > be all the justification needed for at least the initial PIv6 > assignment. Does this policy mention changing justification at all? I don't think it does, but I might have missed it. If you think justification needs to be changed for IPv6 allocation, then a new proposal is a good idea. Start a thread, we can discuss it! -- Shane From fweimer at bfk.de Wed Sep 17 12:16:31 2008 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:16:31 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <20080902084429.GM25927@Space.Net> (Gert Doering's message of "Tue, 2 Sep 2008 10:44:29 +0200") References: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> <48BC58D7.3020200@birkenwald.de> <82od37gh36.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <20080902084429.GM25927@Space.Net> Message-ID: <82wshb84cg.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Gert Doering: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 09:08:45AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Bernhard Schmidt: >> >> > (PA has a recurring, for most networks not too small price tag >> > attached, PI is basically free) >> >> Is there a way around the scoring algorithm I don't know about? > > PI is currently scored in the year of assignment, and then never again, > so it's not "fully free", but after the initial cost, it is - so the > term "basically free" is appropriate. Yuck. And our RIPE DB guy actually knew this; maybe I should have talked to him earlier. Anyway, this particular way of pricing resources (or adminstrative overhead) certainly had a rationale at one point. The question is whether it still applies. The situation may look pretty bad (as Shane wrote), but the alternative options may be even worse (in our experience, it's difficult to hand back PA resources---with PI, waste is at least visible). -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Wed Sep 17 12:57:47 2008 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:57:47 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <82wshb84cg.fsf@mid.bfk.de> References: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> <48BC58D7.3020200@birkenwald.de> <82od37gh36.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <20080902084429.GM25927@Space.Net> <82wshb84cg.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: <48D0E2AB.9010904@knowtion.net> Florian Weimer wrote: > ... with PI, waste is at least visible). Once again, and again, and maybe one more time: Just because a PI prefix does not appear in *your* global routeing table does not mean it is not in active and valid use. PI prefixes do not have to be publicly published and there are very good reasons why not. Please read up on terms like VPN and INTERnets (my dumb emphasis). Peter From fweimer at bfk.de Wed Sep 17 13:30:43 2008 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:30:43 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <48D0E2AB.9010904@knowtion.net> (Peter Galbavy's message of "Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:57:47 +0100") References: <48BBD421.8090808@futureinquestion.net> <48BC58D7.3020200@birkenwald.de> <82od37gh36.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <20080902084429.GM25927@Space.Net> <82wshb84cg.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <48D0E2AB.9010904@knowtion.net> Message-ID: <82r67j80ws.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Peter Galbavy: > Florian Weimer wrote: >> ... with PI, waste is at least visible). > > Once again, and again, and maybe one more time: > > Just because a PI prefix does not appear in *your* global routeing > table does not mean it is not in active and valid use. Sure. But even if you don't route it publicly, you still should keep the information in the RIPE database up-to-date. If nobody announces the prefix, and the organization mentioned in the database does not exist anymore, it surely smells unused. -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Wed Sep 17 23:54:55 2008 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:54:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) In-Reply-To: <1221645950.17367.32.camel@shane-macbook-pro> References: <20080917014632.GB3164@cilantro.c4inet.net> <1221645950.17367.32.camel@shane-macbook-pro> Message-ID: <20080917215455.GA9721@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:05:50PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > 1. The current system is, quite frankly, shit. It is embarrassing > that the RIPE region has continued to put up with such a poorly > managed way to track number resources. Any mechanism to track > these resources is better than what we have now (which is > NOTHING). Oh, I agree absolutely. Not only is it a good idea to know where the space is, it is also a good idea to bring these end-users into the community in some way or the other. This is after all what the founders of the Internet intended :) > 2. No policy is going to make everyone happy. We have worked at > this for many months now (the proposal is 2007-01, not 2008-01). > At some point we have to recognize that what we have is not > perfect, but will ever be perfect, so we should adopt it anyway. > To quote Voltaire: Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien (the perfect is > the enemy of the good). Sure, but it is like with laws, if you get it wrong, it's next to impossible to right it after the fact. > If the "barrier" you want to remove for IPv6 is knowing who is actually > using the address space, I think that you are misguided. That "barrier" > needs to be firmly in place, before we end up with the same mess in IPv6 > as we have in IPv4. That's not my intention at all, see above. > > I've seen some mention of a "routing slot tax", I think this idea > > needs to be stepped on. Hard. Now. > > Since this is not a part of the proposal justification or details (I > think), we should not have to worry about it. > > I agree it sounds quite awful though. :) It's not part of the proposal but some have suggested setting a high financial barrier to discourage use of PI(v6) in order to avoid "pollution" of the routing table. I would not like to see this essentially useful proposal hi- jacked for that agenda. > > Does this policy mention changing justification at all? I don't think it > does, but I might have missed it. It doesn't, there isn't any policy for PIv6 yet, I guess this would have to be discussed in the context of this (new) policy. cheers, Sascha From filiz at ripe.net Thu Sep 18 14:19:02 2008 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:19:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) Message-ID: <20080918121902.CB5DD2F592@herring.ripe.net> 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 From randy at psg.com Thu Sep 18 14:24:52 2008 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:24:52 +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: <48D24894.1090703@psg.com> what is the reasoning behind > Such address space must not contain any block that is assigned to an > End User. i am confused by two aspects o it's ok if some of it is assigned to another lir, but not a user? o but i can't transfer to mary space with customers, why? randy From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Thu Sep 18 21:00:56 2008 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:00:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) References: <20080918121902.CB5DD2F592@herring.ripe.net> <48D24894.1090703@psg.com> Message-ID: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC5F85F6@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> The reasoning is quite simple - we wanted the scope of the proposal to be minimal and make it avoid all the really hard bits because getting consensus on the basic premise is already hard enough. You will also find that the proposal does not include PI, IPv6 or ASNs. So it's only about allocated IPv4 PA space that is not in current use anywhere. Best, Remco -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: donderdag 18 september 2008 14:25 To: Filiz Yilmaz Cc: policy-announce at ripe.net; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources) what is the reasoning behind > Such address space must not contain any block that is assigned to an > End User. i am confused by two aspects o it's ok if some of it is assigned to another lir, but not a user? o but i can't transfer to mary space with customers, why? randy Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com From alexlh at ripe.net Fri Sep 19 11:58:52 2008 From: alexlh at ripe.net (Alex le Heux) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:58:52 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New AS Number block allocated to the RIPE NCC Message-ID: <48D377DC.7020805@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the AS Number Block 48128 - 49151 from the IANA in September 2008. You may want to update your records accordingly. Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC From nominations at ripe.net Thu Sep 25 14:12:09 2008 From: nominations at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:12:09 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE NCC NRO Number Council Candidates Confirmed Message-ID: <48DB8019.9070307@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, The nomination period for appointment to the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council (NC) has now closed. This year, in accordance with the Number Resource Organization's Memorandum of Understanding (NRO MoU), the RIPE NCC Board of Executives will make the NRO NC appointment. The following candidates have accepted their nomination for the vacant seat on the NRO NC from the RIPE NCC service region: - Paolo Bellorini - Remco van Mook - Wilfried Woeber The term of Wilfried Woeber, which began on 1 January 2006, expires on 31 December 2008. The representative appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board for the NRO NC seat will serve a three-year term, beginning 1 January 2009. Candidate profiles and information on how to submit an Expression of Support can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2008/confirmed-nominations.html The RIPE NCC Executive Board will announce the successful candidate at the RIPE 57 Meeting, held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 26-30 October 2008. For more information about the NRO NC and the selection process, see: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2008/about-nc.html Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director The RIPE NCC