From gert at space.net Thu Aug 13 17:21:51 2009 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:21:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Minutes from RIPE 58 are now online Message-ID: <20090813152151.GA85811@Space.Net> Hi APWG folks, the RIPE NCC has published the draft minutes from the RIPE 58 APWG meeting under the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/minutes.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r58-minutes.html If you have any additions, or anything that is reproduced incorrectly, please let us know so that it can be corrected. I apologize for the delay in getting these published - the NCC did a great job in creating a really impressive document quickly, and then it spent quite some time in my mailbox for review :-/ 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 hej at nida.kr Mon Aug 17 14:07:02 2009 From: hej at nida.kr (=?ks_c_5601-1987?B?yLLAx8G+?=) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:07:02 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] I wonder IP allocation of EU Message-ID: <01A729E288B544B78D3C37211353C3E5@Bryan> Hi This is Bryan with KRNIC(Korea Network Information Center) I wonder IP allocation about RIPE-NCC. I found allocation of " EU" in RIPE-NCC statistics. As I know, EU is European Union and they have many countries(FR, UK, AU.....) But In statistics have "FR" , " UK", " AU" and so on. I want to know why was "EU" independent category in staticstics ? How many they have member ? If you have any idea and information about "EU" please send me e-mail. thanks Bryan Hwang -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marcoh at marcoh.net Tue Aug 18 11:50:37 2009 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:50:37 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05 In-Reply-To: <15D87869-7F40-4C6C-8225-14D35D9A1CBC@nosignal.org> References: <4A5F447F.2060408@easyhosting.nl> <9DD3D047-608B-4C18-B422-AB36AF537D09@marcoh.net> <4A6B2EFD.6060200@inex.ie> <20090725212919.33df4a73@obelix> <4A6B7FB0.4050401@inex.ie> <15D87869-7F40-4C6C-8225-14D35D9A1CBC@nosignal.org> Message-ID: <834D2602-A29F-43FB-9679-F7DD563670B1@marcoh.net> On 29 jul 2009, at 21:22, Andy Davidson wrote: > > On 25 Jul 2009, at 22:57, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >> Since 2005-01-01, 128 assignments were made of less than /24 and >> 3934 of exactly /24. These figures do not look to me like the >> results of 3934 honest assignment application forms. >> >> Turning this around, if the minimum PI assignment size were >> increased from /32 to /24, there would have been 23k extra PI >> addresses out of 5493760 total PI addresses assigned between >> 2005-01-01 and 2009-05. That's about 0.4%. > > I agree that the amounts in question are trivial and the benefits to > the community (at least for the ten minutes or so that there is > unallocated ipv4 left...) will be appreciated by small orgs looking > for the benefits of multihoming - Nick's words are right as usual. > > However, I don't think we should mandate that /24 be the minimum > assignment size - the rule should allow requests for a /24 to be the > minimum size for announcement on the Internet, but if networks are > not planning to announce the prefix via bgp (e.g. non-announced > loopback ranges), then they should be allowed to request a smaller > range. But as you say if we do mandate this the effect is trivial. The question remains what to do when "the internet" - or some part of it - decide to filter on /23. Do we modify the policy again to make / 23 the minimum ? Are we going to allow people to hand in their original /24 assignment and grow it to /23 ? Groet, MarcoH From tme at multicasttech.com Tue Aug 18 12:12:54 2009 From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:12:54 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05 In-Reply-To: <834D2602-A29F-43FB-9679-F7DD563670B1@marcoh.net> References: <4A5F447F.2060408@easyhosting.nl> <9DD3D047-608B-4C18-B422-AB36AF537D09@marcoh.net> <4A6B2EFD.6060200@inex.ie> <20090725212919.33df4a73@obelix> <4A6B7FB0.4050401@inex.ie> <15D87869-7F40-4C6C-8225-14D35D9A1CBC@nosignal.org> <834D2602-A29F-43FB-9679-F7DD563670B1@marcoh.net> Message-ID: <2F99D79B-1E02-400C-A882-A14D68F45B78@multicasttech.com> On Aug 18, 2009, at 5:50 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > > On 29 jul 2009, at 21:22, Andy Davidson wrote: > >> >> On 25 Jul 2009, at 22:57, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> >>> Since 2005-01-01, 128 assignments were made of less than /24 and >>> 3934 of exactly /24. These figures do not look to me like the >>> results of 3934 honest assignment application forms. >>> >>> Turning this around, if the minimum PI assignment size were >>> increased from /32 to /24, there would have been 23k extra PI >>> addresses out of 5493760 total PI addresses assigned between >>> 2005-01-01 and 2009-05. That's about 0.4%. >> >> I agree that the amounts in question are trivial and the benefits >> to the community (at least for the ten minutes or so that there is >> unallocated ipv4 left...) will be appreciated by small orgs looking >> for the benefits of multihoming - Nick's words are right as usual. >> >> However, I don't think we should mandate that /24 be the minimum >> assignment size - the rule should allow requests for a /24 to be >> the minimum size for announcement on the Internet, but if networks >> are not planning to announce the prefix via bgp (e.g. non-announced >> loopback ranges), then they should be allowed to request a smaller >> range. But as you say if we do mandate this the effect is trivial. > > > The question remains what to do when "the internet" - or some part > of it - decide to filter on /23. Do we modify the policy again to > make /23 the minimum ? Are we going to allow people to hand in their > original /24 assignment and grow it to /23 ? If you want my opinion, no. There is never a guarantee that any assignment will be routable anywhere and there is no way to make such guarantees. Some time ago, IPv4 filtering blocks longer than /20 was fairly common. In fact, when ARIN passed 2002-3 (its micro-assignment policy for multi-homed networks), that was still the case. While there was not a land-rush to claim smaller blocks, there was adoption even though the recipients had to deal with this, and over time it all seems to have sorted itself out adequately. Regards Marshall > > Groet, > > MarcoH > > From swmike at swm.pp.se Tue Aug 18 12:36:58 2009 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:36:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05 In-Reply-To: <2F99D79B-1E02-400C-A882-A14D68F45B78@multicasttech.com> References: <4A5F447F.2060408@easyhosting.nl> <9DD3D047-608B-4C18-B422-AB36AF537D09@marcoh.net> <4A6B2EFD.6060200@inex.ie> <20090725212919.33df4a73@obelix> <4A6B7FB0.4050401@inex.ie> <15D87869-7F40-4C6C-8225-14D35D9A1CBC@nosignal.org> <834D2602-A29F-43FB-9679-F7DD563670B1@marcoh.net> <2F99D79B-1E02-400C-A882-A14D68F45B78@multicasttech.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > Some time ago, IPv4 filtering blocks longer than /20 was fairly common. > In fact, when ARIN passed 2002-3 (its micro-assignment policy for > multi-homed networks), that was still the case. While there was not a > land-rush to claim smaller blocks, there was adoption even though the > recipients had to deal with this, and over time it all seems to have > sorted itself out adequately. The /20 filtering mentioned was probably for ARIN blocks then, because it wasn't a general practice as I've experience with /24 in RIPE space since 1995-1996 or so and it wasn't a problem back then and is not now. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From laura at ripe.net Tue Aug 18 13:51:21 2009 From: laura at ripe.net (Laura Cobley) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:51:21 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] I wonder IP allocation of EU In-Reply-To: <01A729E288B544B78D3C37211353C3E5@Bryan> References: <01A729E288B544B78D3C37211353C3E5@Bryan> Message-ID: <4A8A95B9.3070001@ripe.net> Hello Bryan, RIPE NCC uses EU to identify members which are represented by multi-national organisations, rather than organisations based and operating in a single country. We currently have about 70 members with EU status. Best Regards, Laura Cobley RIPE NCC ??? wrote: > > Hi > > This is Bryan with KRNIC(Korea Network Information Center) > > I wonder IP allocation about RIPE-NCC. > > I found allocation of " EU" in RIPE-NCC statistics. > > As I know, EU is European Union and they have many countries(FR, UK, > AU.....) > > But In statistics have "FR" , " UK", " AU" and so on. > > I want to know why was "EU" independent category in staticstics ? > > How many they have member ? > > If you have any idea and information about "EU" please send me e-mail. > > thanks > > Bryan Hwang > > > From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Tue Aug 18 14:31:28 2009 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:31:28 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] I wonder IP allocation of EU In-Reply-To: <01A729E288B544B78D3C37211353C3E5@Bryan> References: <01A729E288B544B78D3C37211353C3E5@Bryan> Message-ID: <4A8A9F20.2070201@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Dear Bryan! Following up on Laura's comment.... ??? wrote: > Hi > > This is Bryan with KRNIC(Korea Network Information Center) > > I wonder IP allocation about RIPE-NCC. > > I found allocation of " EU" in RIPE-NCC statistics. > > As I know, EU is European Union and they have many countries(FR, UK, AU.....) 1) Australia (AU) is not in Europe :-) (but Austria, AT, is a member of the EU) 2) The term Europe in this context is not limited to refer to the European Union, but rather to Europe in a geographic sense. [...] > If you have any idea and information about "EU" please send me e-mail. > > thanks > > Bryan Hwang All the best, Wilfried. From scottleibrand at gmail.com Tue Aug 18 17:06:54 2009 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:06:54 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05 In-Reply-To: <834D2602-A29F-43FB-9679-F7DD563670B1@marcoh.net> References: <4A5F447F.2060408@easyhosting.nl> <9DD3D047-608B-4C18-B422-AB36AF537D09@marcoh.net> <4A6B2EFD.6060200@inex.ie> <20090725212919.33df4a73@obelix> <4A6B7FB0.4050401@inex.ie> <15D87869-7F40-4C6C-8225-14D35D9A1CBC@nosignal.org> <834D2602-A29F-43FB-9679-F7DD563670B1@marcoh.net> Message-ID: <6FFC8A5C-6A98-4AC3-B88C-1DF9D16FA539@gmail.com> On Aug 18, 2009, at 2:50 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > > On 29 jul 2009, at 21:22, Andy Davidson wrote: > >> >> On 25 Jul 2009, at 22:57, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> >> However, I don't think we should mandate that /24 be the minimum >> assignment size - the rule should allow requests for a /24 to be >> the minimum size for announcement on the Internet, but if networks >> are not planning to announce the prefix via bgp (e.g. non-announced >> loopback ranges), then they should be allowed to request a smaller >> range. But as you say if we do mandate this the effect is trivial. > > > The question remains what to do when "the internet" - or some part > of it - decide to filter on /23. Do we modify the policy again to > make /23 the minimum ? Are we going to allow people to hand in their > original /24 assignment and grow it to /23 ? FWIW, the trend seems to be in the other direction. /25 looks a lot more likely than /23. > -Scott From ingrid at ripe.net Wed Aug 19 10:28:23 2009 From: ingrid at ripe.net (Ingrid Wijte) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:28:23 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-07 Last Call for Comments (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries) Message-ID: <20090819082823.53B892F592@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2009-07 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2009-07 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-07.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 16 September 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com Wed Aug 19 10:43:56 2009 From: remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:43:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-07 Last Call for Comments (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <20090819082823.53B892F592@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: Hi all, This policy proposal makes sense to me - please go ahead. Best, Remco On 19-08-09 10:28, "Ingrid Wijte" wrote: > PDP Number: 2009-07 > Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks > (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries > > Dear Colleagues, > > > The proposal described in 2009-07 is now at its Concluding Phase. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-07.html > > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net > before 16 September 2009. > > > Regards > > Ingrid Wijte > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383. From slz at baycix.de Wed Aug 19 10:57:38 2009 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:57:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-07 Last Call for Comments (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <20090819082823.53B892F592@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090819082823.53B892F592@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4A8BBE82.5050108@baycix.de> Hay, Ingrid Wijte schrieb: > PDP Number: 2009-07 > Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries > > Dear Colleagues, > > > The proposal described in 2009-07 is now at its Concluding Phase. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-07.html > > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net > before 16 September 2009. i don't see any problems here, nor do i remember any reasonable alternative suggestions to face the problem, so please go on with it as proposed please. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ======================================================================== From andy at nosignal.org Wed Aug 19 11:16:09 2009 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:16:09 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-07 Last Call for Comments (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <20090819082823.53B892F592@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090819082823.53B892F592@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <12E07FB0-D699-4E01-88C3-1F2A07CF385B@nosignal.org> On 19 Aug 2009, at 09:28, Ingrid Wijte wrote: > The proposal described in 2009-07 is now at its Concluding Phase. > You can find the full proposal at: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-07.html I support this proposal, please proceed. Andy From Ralph.Smit at nxs.nl Wed Aug 19 11:29:53 2009 From: Ralph.Smit at nxs.nl (Ralph Smit) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:29:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-07 Last Call for Comments (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <20090819082823.53B892F592@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090819082823.53B892F592@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: Hi, This proposal makes sense to me, I support it. Regards, Ralph. -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ingrid Wijte Sent: woensdag 19 augustus 2009 10:28 To: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-07 Last Call for Comments (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries) PDP Number: 2009-07 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2009-07 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-07.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 16 September 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From marcoh at marcoh.net Wed Aug 19 11:55:56 2009 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:55:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-07 Last Call for Comments (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <20090819082823.53B892F592@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090819082823.53B892F592@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: I support this proposal, please go ahead. Groet, MarcoH From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Wed Aug 19 15:26:59 2009 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:26:59 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-07 Last Call for Comments (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: References: <20090819082823.53B892F592@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4A8BFDA3.2060004@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Unconditionally in favour, please go ahaead. Wilfried. From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Wed Aug 19 15:44:45 2009 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:44:45 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08 New Draft Document Published (IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs) In-Reply-To: <20090716115106.CCA8E2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090716115106.CCA8E2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4A8C01CD.5000200@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2009-08 > IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs > > Dear Colleagues, > > The text of the policy proposal 2009-08 has been revised based on > the community feedback. I am having two minor(?) problems with the current version, although I do support the idea in general: The "LIR" is a function or service within an organisation or service provider. The LIR assigns adresses from its allocation to "customers" and for use by the own infra-structure of the organisation or service provider. I think it does not do that "for itself"? Maybe this is nit-picking, but I am feeling uncomfortable. The use of the term "SHOULD" in a policy is not a good idea at all - ref.: "If an organisation already received a PI assignment before becoming an LIR," Either this has to be a MUST again, or left out from the policy altogether. Any suggestions we want to make could go to a BCP or whatever we think is appropriate. Wilfried. From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Thu Aug 20 09:58:15 2009 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 07:58:15 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-07 Discussion Period extended until 24 August 2009 (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources) In-Reply-To: <4A6FF535.6010900@cisco.com> References: <20090728092819.T61841-100000@capral.ripn.net> <4A6FF535.6010900@cisco.com> Message-ID: <4A8D0217.8060807@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Hi Philip, all, just let me state that I support the general idea and goal. Neverthless I have a couple of open issues before I could state my personal support for the proposal. the very basic question would be: why would this policy be targetted at new LIRs, and towards additional allocations, instead of targetting *all* additioal assignments in the first place? There are pockets of network around, where the customers (completely separate legal entities) do hold (and properly use) *much* more legacy address space from the past (but the LIR doesn't!), than the amount of PA space managed by the (related) LIR. This would also address Larisa's concern, imho, regarding documentation? Philip Smith wrote: > Hi Larisa, [...] > What I'm proposing is that LIRs who hold pre-rir addresses simply > document the utilisation of those addresses, and at what level. If your > customer has received pre-RIR space from you, How could that happen? I am obviously missing something here... > and they are announcing it > all to you, then I'd say it is reasonable to assume that they are using > it. If they are only announcing 50% of it, then it is reasonable to > assume that only 50% is being used. The other 50% could be used by other > customers of yours, or in your own infrastructure, etc. Caution, can of worms! This is again assuming that everyone has to announce all of their resources to everywhere on the 'one and only' Internet. :-) Of course, the *assumption* is probably very resonable in many/most cases, but is not enough, in my opinion, to use it as a hard policy argument? > The policy proposal requests LIRs who have address space that is not > used to indicate so when they apply for fresh space. In other words, > request LIRs to use unused space first before applying for fresh space. I think, again, this mixes LIR, ISP and customer, isn't it? > Does this address your concerns? > > philip > -- Wilfried. PS: Philip - is this intended as or going to be a Global Policy Proposal, eventually? From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Thu Aug 20 10:01:14 2009 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:01:14 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-07 Discussion Period extended until 24 August 2009 (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources) In-Reply-To: <4A8D0217.8060807@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <20090728092819.T61841-100000@capral.ripn.net> <4A6FF535.6010900@cisco.com> <4A8D0217.8060807@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <4A8D02CA.7000101@CC.UniVie.ac.at> There's probably going to be some interaction with 2008-08 that we should consider, too... http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08.html Wilfried From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Thu Aug 20 11:17:39 2009 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:17:39 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05 In-Reply-To: <2F99D79B-1E02-400C-A882-A14D68F45B78@multicasttech.com> References: <4A5F447F.2060408@easyhosting.nl> <9DD3D047-608B-4C18-B422-AB36AF537D09@marcoh.net> <4A6B2EFD.6060200@inex.ie> <20090725212919.33df4a73@obelix> <4A6B7FB0.4050401@inex.ie> <15D87869-7F40-4C6C-8225-14D35D9A1CBC@nosignal.org> <834D2602-A29F-43FB-9679-F7DD563670B1@marcoh.net> <2F99D79B-1E02-400C-A882-A14D68F45B78@multicasttech.com> Message-ID: <4A8D14B3.7010907@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > On Aug 18, 2009, at 5:50 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > >> >> On 29 jul 2009, at 21:22, Andy Davidson wrote: >> >>> >>> On 25 Jul 2009, at 22:57, Nick Hilliard wrote: [...] >>> ... - the rule should allow requests for a /24 to be the >>> minimum size for announcement on the Internet, but if networks are >>> not planning to announce the prefix via bgp (e.g. non-announced >>> loopback ranges), then they should be allowed to request a smaller >>> range.[...] Why would anyone opt for the possibility to get *less* address space? Essentially, in my personal opinion, supporting this proposal is like suggesting to go back to the classful, pre-CIDR times through the backdoor. How would a LIR argue opposite a customer asking for a /24 from PA space when the need is only good for a, say, /26 PA, when the customer can get a /24 PI for (the proposed, flat) ? 50,- per year? Probably for much less, if the customer's negotiation skills are just a tad above minimum ;-) Wilfried. PS: one group in my Org has been in this problem space just recently, and still I do NOT support the proposal, as the manager for our LIR ;-) From ula at ripn.net Thu Aug 20 11:28:49 2009 From: ula at ripn.net (Larisa A. Yurkina) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:28:49 +0400 (MSD) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-07 Discussion Period extended until 24 August 2009 (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources) In-Reply-To: <4A8D0217.8060807@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20090820124152.X19729-100000@capral.ripn.net> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Hi Philip, all, Hi Wilfried, Philip, all, > > just let me state that I support the general idea and goal. So do i. > Neverthless I have a couple of open issues before I could state my > personal support for the proposal. > > the very basic question would be: why would this policy be targetted at > new LIRs, and towards additional allocations, instead of targetting *all* > additioal assignments in the first place? > > There are pockets of network around, where the customers (completely separate > legal entities) do hold (and properly use) *much* more legacy address space > from the past (but the LIR doesn't!), than the amount of PA space managed by > the (related) LIR. > > This would also address Larisa's concern, imho, regarding documentation? > I suppose yes, thank you. > Philip Smith wrote: > > Hi Larisa, > [...] > > What I'm proposing is that LIRs who hold pre-rir addresses simply > > document the utilisation of those addresses, and at what level. If your > > customer has received pre-RIR space from you, > > How could that happen? I am obviously missing something here... > > > and they are announcing it > > all to you, then I'd say it is reasonable to assume that they are using > > it. If they are only announcing 50% of it, then it is reasonable to > > assume that only 50% is being used. The other 50% could be used by other > > customers of yours, or in your own infrastructure, etc. > > Caution, can of worms! This is again assuming that everyone has to announce > all of their resources to everywhere on the 'one and only' Internet. :-) > Of course, the *assumption* is probably very resonable in many/most cases, > but is not enough, in my opinion, to use it as a hard policy argument? Policy proposal says about 'documentation' but not about 'use'. 'Use' and 'documentation' is not the same. > > > The policy proposal requests LIRs who have address space that is not > > used to indicate so when they apply for fresh space. In other words, > > request LIRs to use unused space first before applying for fresh space. > > I think, again, this mixes LIR, ISP and customer, isn't it? I'd add something. My LIR has several allocations really ancient, 1995 -1998. Which of them are "pre-rir", which are not, is not clear to me. I'm afraid that it is going to become clear only when additinal allocation will be required. What kind of documentation should I submit then? > > > Does this address your concerns? > > > > philip > > -- > > Wilfried. > > PS: Philip - is this intended as or going to be a Global Policy Proposal, > eventually? > > With respect, Larisa Yurkina --- RIPN Registry center ----- From cfriacas at fccn.pt Thu Aug 20 11:31:43 2009 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:31:43 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-07 Discussion Period extended until 24 August 2009 (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources) In-Reply-To: <4A8D0217.8060807@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <20090728092819.T61841-100000@capral.ripn.net> <4A6FF535.6010900@cisco.com> <4A8D0217.8060807@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: (...) > > There are pockets of network around, where the customers (completely separate > legal entities) do hold (and properly use) *much* more legacy address space > from the past (but the LIR doesn't!), than the amount of PA space managed by > the (related) LIR. (...) Hi, I just want to second that... relatively small organizations got some big blocks (i.e. class B) in the pre-RIR age, and thus they never felt any need to later become a LIR, or even to get some space through a LIR in the following years. These organizations can be labeled as "outside of the RIR system", and as far as i understood they really like it that way (no RIR fees, ...). As someone already told me, they had a bet on the right horse some years ago. IMHO, this proves early-adopters sometimes really get some advantage! Best Regards, Carlos Fria?as From ingrid at ripe.net Thu Aug 20 11:50:58 2009 From: ingrid at ripe.net (Ingrid Wijte) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:50:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs) Message-ID: <20090820095058.9A8992F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2009-08 IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2009-08 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-08.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 17 September 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From ip-office at kpn.com Thu Aug 20 16:43:47 2009 From: ip-office at kpn.com (IP-Office KPN) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:43:47 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs) Message-ID: All, I support the general idea of the proposal, but I have some questions: The proposal states that (last paragraph): "If an organisation already received a PI assignment before becoming an LIR, the PI assignment should be returned upon receiving an IPv6 allocation if there are no specific routing requirements to justify both." First question: Only in this last paragraph of the proposal there is mention of "PI assignment" as opposed to "IPv6 assignment". Was this done intentionally? Second question: Is it (therefore) not possible to become a LIR and just keep the PI assignment instead of asking for a IPv6 PA allocation? I can imagine that if an organisation doesn't want to have Independent Assignment Request and Maintenance Agreements with LIRs, instead of entering into a End User Assignment Agreement with RIPE, the organisation wishes to become a LIR (same costs, more service) while wanting to keep the previously assigned PI space (and public AS number). Third question: Also, (just to be sure) as this Policy document exclusively deals with IPv6, does this policy proposal also have impact on the IPv4 PI space an organisation already has when it wants to become an LIR? With kind regards, Andries Hettema nl.kpn-bbt IP-Office KPN Internet 070 45 13398 ip-office at kpn.com From sander at steffann.nl Mon Aug 24 22:04:53 2009 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:04:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 Message-ID: <275EA11D-0689-471B-9876-5EEBFADA6246@steffann.nl> Hello everyone, It has been quiet for some time now, so I think we should start to discuss the final /8 proposals again. In part 2 of the discussion, we discussed how many addresses an LIR should be able to get from the final /8. I'll try to summarize that part of the discussion. Please correct me if I am wrong or if I missed something: Most people preferred option b: All requests are downscaled by a certain factor Some people preferred option a: Everyone gets one (and only one) fixed size block There were comments that IPv4 would never run out, but let's assume that it will run out. In the worst (best?) case we won't need this final /8 policy, so it doesn't hurt to be prepared when we do need it. Because most people preferred option b, let's discuss some of the details to see if we can make that work. If we are going to downscale address space requests, how should we do that? Some issues: - If a company demonstrates the need for a /20, we could give them (for example) a /26. Smaller organisations would end up with even smaller amounts of address space. Currently prefixes longer than a /24 can not really be routed on 'the Internet' (for some definition of 'Internet'). Do we expect this to change, or do we have to make the minimum allocation size a /24 so that LIRs receiving address space can use it? - Do we want a maximum allocation size? This might be useful to prevent a few large companies to grab most of the address space, but it might also be unnecessary. - Do we want to make exceptions for certain situations where downscaling is not possible? For example a server farm with many HTTPS sites can't use less IP addresses than the number of websites (with the current protocols). I would like to leave PI assignments out od the discussion for now. I think we have enough PA related questions to discuss, but don't worry: we will get to the PI discussion later. As before: please stay on topic. This discussion is hard enough as it is :) Thanks, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair From nick at inex.ie Mon Aug 24 23:43:39 2009 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:43:39 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05 In-Reply-To: <4A8D14B3.7010907@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4A5F447F.2060408@easyhosting.nl> <9DD3D047-608B-4C18-B422-AB36AF537D09@marcoh.net> <4A6B2EFD.6060200@inex.ie> <20090725212919.33df4a73@obelix> <4A6B7FB0.4050401@inex.ie> <15D87869-7F40-4C6C-8225-14D35D9A1CBC@nosignal.org> <834D2602-A29F-43FB-9679-F7DD563670B1@marcoh.net> <2F99D79B-1E02-400C-A882-A14D68F45B78@multicasttech.com> <4A8D14B3.7010907@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <4A93098B.2070301@inex.ie> On 20/08/2009 10:17, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > How would a LIR argue opposite a customer asking for a /24 from PA space > when the need is only good for a, say, /26 PA, when the customer can get a > /24 PI for (the proposed, flat) ? 50,- per year? Probably for much less, if > the customer's negotiation skills are just a tad above minimum ;-) Wilfried, I'm not proposing that minimum blocks of /24 be handed out like interior extras by a car salesman, but rather that there should be some mechanism where they can be assigned in the specific case where the customer has a demonstrable requirement to multi-home their network, and where becoming a LIR is too heavyweight for their requirements, and/or would waste 7 x /24 from a /21 allocation. There is a significant and clear-cut difference between the two situations here: the one is a grossly irresponsible and cavalier attitude to dealing with addressing requirements; the other is a sensible method of dealing responsibly with a legitimate end-user need. > PS: one group in my Org has been in this problem space just recently, and > still I do NOT support the proposal, as the manager for our LIR Good for you. Have you looked at the problem from the end-user viewpoint? I find it to be rather murkier than the LIR outlook. Nick From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Aug 25 10:31:33 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:31:33 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 In-Reply-To: <275EA11D-0689-471B-9876-5EEBFADA6246@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4A69@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > It has been quiet for some time now, so I think we should > start to discuss the final /8 proposals again. Perhaps we could do better than just repeat the previous discussion. First of all, let's set the context. If we have a policy for the final /8 then this policy will take effect when IANA announces that the global supply of IPv4 addresses has run out. That's why the final /8 is final. At that time there will be a lot of media coverage of IANA's announcement and greater awareness that the RIRs only have a limited regional supply of IPv4 addresses left. At that point in time, RIPE will be able to project its own runout of IPv4, based on past allocation history and its policies. I wonder what that runout date would be? How much IPv4 inventory is RIPE likely to have when it gets a new /8 allocation, and what is the run-rate for IPv4 allocations per month? What period of time are we talking about? This is important, because if the period of time is short enough, we could ask all LIRs to tell RIPE what their IP address requirements are month by month. Then RIPE can see how much the inventory is oversubscribed, and allocate the entire inventory at one time, dividing it up so that everyone runs out at the same time. Why do this? So that we help ISPs who are providing IPv6 Internet access to get market penetration for their services by creating yet another media event. A scheme like a) allocate one fixed block size, or b) starve everyone equally, will result in everyone running out at different times. This makes it harder to get the attention of the market and sell IPv6 services in sufficient volume. The policy to implement this would call for RIPE to halt all IPv4 allocations when IANA issues the final /8, analyze the current situation, publish a runout date and monthly run-rate for the RIPE region, and then call for applications. Once the applications are in, RIPE could publish the amounts requested and LIR identity for each allocation, propose an actual set of allocations that would result in all those RIRs running out at the same time, then call an extraordinary RIPE meeting to vote on what to do with the IPv4 inventory. Let's not try to decide exactly what to do today, when we lack information. Instead, let's push this EXTRAORDINARY decision making into the future where it belongs, at the time when the EXTRAORDINARY event takes place. --Michael Dillon From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Aug 25 11:30:17 2009 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:30:17 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4A69@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4A69@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <6436F3F1-4DAB-44CA-8C0F-E1795B5035A4@rfc1035.com> On 25 Aug 2009, at 09:31, wrote: > Instead, let's push this EXTRAORDINARY decision making into the future > where it belongs, at the time when the EXTRAORDINARY event takes > place. I STRONGLY disgaree with this. It will be very unwise -- I'm being charitable here -- to postpone this fundamentally crucial policy discussion until the extraordinary event occurs. First of all, there is the potential for all sorts of trouble if RIPE tries to invent and then introduce new policies at that critical point. Obvious examples of this trouble include regulatory interventions, lawsuits, investigations by competition authorities and so on. At the point where IANA v4 runs out, expect everyone, particularly lawyers and governments, to take a much, much closer interest in IP addressing and how it's co-ordinated.] Then there's the likely bickering between LIRs. Or between the RIRs. Or some combination of those. Secondly, it's extremely unlikely a consensus on how to manage those dwindling v4 addresses could emerge at that point. When the SS IPv4 starts to sink, the prospect of a reasoned discussion reaching an agreed conclusion about who does and doesn't get space on the lifeboats which can't accommodate everyone don't look good. There's a Titanic analogy in here somewhere. Hopefully it won't involve that wretched Celine Dion song. :-) Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if policy making about the last /8 is to be postponed until that event, it's doubtful that a consensus could be reached in time to make a difference. Assuming there is a difference to be made which is worth it at that point. At the moment it takes the WG and the PDP some months to agree somewhat non-controversial policies: like anycast assignments for TLD DNS. Carving up the remaining IPv4 space is already controversial. After this extraordinary event occurs, will the controversy level be lower, about the same or higher? From ingrid at ripe.net Tue Aug 25 11:31:43 2009 From: ingrid at ripe.net (Ingrid Wijte) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:31:43 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-06 Last Call for Comments (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy) Message-ID: <20090825093143.558E82F596@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2009-06 Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2009-06 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 22 September 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Aug 25 11:47:45 2009 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:47:45 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] moratorium on IPv4 allocations when the last /8 goes In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4A69@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4A69@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: On 25 Aug 2009, at 09:31, wrote: > The policy to implement this would call for RIPE to halt all IPv4 > allocations when IANA issues the final /8, analyze the current > situation, publish a runout date and monthly run-rate for the RIPE > region, and then call for applications. I can't see this ever flying with the membership. Suppose this hypothetical policy was in force. An LIR has a business need for more IPv4 after this moratorium applied. At that point the NCC is sitting on a stockpile of addresses but isn't handing them out. What will the LIR do? (a) sit back and politely wait an indefinite but probably long time until some analysis is done and the AP WG arrives at a consensus on how the remaining stockpile is to be managed; (b) reach for its lawyers (c) complain to government/regulator about restraint of trade, anti- competitive behaviour, unfair markets, etc. Somehow I can't see an LIR doing (a). Even if this was the best solution from a global perspective -- tragedy of the commons and all that -- it seems unlikely the LIR will sit on its hands while it loses customers to another LIR that has IPv4 space available. From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Aug 25 11:48:37 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:48:37 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 In-Reply-To: <6436F3F1-4DAB-44CA-8C0F-E1795B5035A4@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4C31@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > > Instead, let's push this EXTRAORDINARY decision making into > the future > > where it belongs, at the time when the EXTRAORDINARY event takes > > place. > > I STRONGLY disgaree with this. > > It will be very unwise -- I'm being charitable here -- to > postpone this fundamentally crucial policy discussion until > the extraordinary event occurs. You missed the bit about gathering some data which could be used to make the decision. Do you think it is wise to decide now, without knowing what the RIPE monthly run-rate is or when RIPE's address supply is projected to runout? > First of all, there is the potential for all sorts of trouble > if RIPE tries to invent and then introduce new policies at > that critical point. If RIPE makes new policy NOW that delays decisionmaking until a future event occurs, then there will be no need to invent and introduce new policies in the future. In particular, if we all agree now that it is most fair for the last /8 to be allocated in a way that the recipients of it all run out at roughly the same time, and that agreement sticks over the next couple of years until the event happens, then there is no invention happening in the future, just execution of the plan. In addition, I suggest that the allocation of RIPE's IPv4 inventory after IANA runout, should be confirmed by a general meeting which seems to me to be a very fair and open way to do this. > Obvious examples of this trouble include > regulatory interventions, lawsuits, investigations by > competition authorities and so on. At the point where IANA v4 > runs out, expect everyone, particularly lawyers and > governments, to take a much, much closer interest in IP > addressing and how it's co-ordinated.] Precisely. This scrutiny will happen regardless of what RIPE policies are in place. It is for this reason that I am suggesting that the policy for IPv4 allocation after IANA runout, should be done in an even more transparent way than normally. For instance all LIRs lay their cards on the table for all to see by submitting IPv4 requests which are published before a general meeting decides how much to give everyone. IPv4 runout is not business as usual and I believe that it makes sense to handle it as the extraordinary event that it is. > Secondly, it's extremely unlikely a consensus on how to > manage those dwindling v4 addresses could emerge at that > point. I believe that RIPE meetings do not make decisions by consensus which is why I proposed this route. > When the SS IPv4 starts to sink, the prospect of a > reasoned discussion reaching an agreed conclusion about who > does and doesn't get space on the lifeboats which can't > accommodate everyone don't look good. How do you know? We have no crystal balls to predict the future. Why do we need to decide this today, when there is little motivation to reach a decision and not enough information available to make a decision. For instance we do not know what will be the market penetration of IPv6 at the point of IANA runout. > Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if policy making about > the last /8 is to be postponed until that event, it's > doubtful that a consensus could be reached in time to make a > difference. You missed the part where I said that we change RIPE policy so that when IANA allocates the final /8, RIPE ceases all IPv4 allocation activity under the old rules, and invokes the new ones. No consensus is needed, just execution of the plan and a decision at the EXTRAORDINARY general meeting. > Carving up the remaining IPv4 space is already controversial. > After this extraordinary event occurs, will the controversy > level be lower, about the same or higher? Higher. Which is why we need to change policy today so that after IANA runout, a decision will be made by a more efficient method. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Aug 25 11:54:57 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:54:57 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: moratorium on IPv4 allocations when the last /8 goes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4C5A@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > Suppose this hypothetical policy was in force. An LIR has a > business need for more IPv4 after this moratorium applied. At > that point the NCC is sitting on a stockpile of addresses but > isn't handing them out. > What will the LIR do? > (a) sit back and politely wait an indefinite but > probably long time until some analysis is done and the AP WG > arrives at a consensus on how the remaining stockpile is to > be managed; > (b) reach for its lawyers > (c) complain to government/regulator about restraint of > trade, anti- competitive behaviour, unfair markets, etc. All of the above. But they will also file an application with RIPE which will be included in the list of LIR applications that RIPE publishes before holding the general meeting which will decide how much address space to give out. The wheels of the legal and regulatory system spin slowly, and it is highly likely that the general meeting will be over before any judicial authorities review the complaint. In addition, RIPE has lawyers too, as do other LIRs who are willing to wait for a fair solution to play out. The fair solution is for everyone to get the same amount of time to continue growing their IPv4 stockpile. To do that we need to know RIPE's run-rate, and the run-rates of every LIR that needs some IPv4 allocations after the IANA runout. Instead of making up arbitrary allocations sizes today, we can balance the time factor and round off to the nearest /24. --Michael Dillon From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Aug 25 12:43:03 2009 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:43:03 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: moratorium on IPv4 allocations when the last /8 goes In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4C5A@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4C5A@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <12A4F8AA-9100-4078-B8F1-6CA5D4992126@rfc1035.com> On 25 Aug 2009, at 10:54, wrote: > The fair solution is for everyone to get the same amount of time > to continue growing their IPv4 stockpile. That kind of implies we stick with the current policies as-is. > To do that we need to > know RIPE's run-rate, and the run-rates of every LIR that needs > some IPv4 allocations after the IANA runout. Instead of making > up arbitrary allocations sizes today, we can balance the time > factor and round off to the nearest /24. While this data would be useful, I'm not sure how it will help LIRs with their planning. How many LIRs know now (or soon) what their IPv4 needs will be once IANA runout is reached? Will they share that data? Will it be truthful? If I was an LIR, I'd be tempted to inflate my post runout needs in the hope of getting an extra chunk of the then scarce and valuable IPv space. Partly that could be justified by conservative engineering. OTOH it could be for baser motives: like getting extra space which can be traded. Even if accurate run-rate data was available, it would inevitably be a snap shot and inherently out of date. And it would undoubtedly influence LIR behaviour. Which would have an impact on run-rates. My guess is this would promote depletion of the remaining v4 space, but not necessarily in a fair way. From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Aug 25 12:51:14 2009 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:51:14 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] general meetings In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4C5A@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4C5A@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <6E19199F-4732-49E9-8F0D-77A0AC199C32@rfc1035.com> On 25 Aug 2009, at 10:54, wrote: > But they will also file an application with > RIPE which will be included in the list of LIR applications > that RIPE publishes before holding the general meeting which > will decide how much address space to give out. I'm confused. Which general meeting are you talking about? AFAIK address policy for the RIPE region is decided on this mailing list. RIPE NCC holds general meetings for its members, the LIRs. These vote on the activity plan, decide membership fees and elect the board. Those meetings don't currently vote on RIPE policies other than indirectly through how those policies are reflected in the activity plan. From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Aug 25 13:27:35 2009 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:27:35 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4C31@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4C31@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <666D673B-50BB-4601-8821-9D0AD3C98645@rfc1035.com> On 25 Aug 2009, at 10:48, wrote: > You missed the bit about gathering some data which could be > used to make the decision. I've re-read your message and still can't find the bit where you clearly say when this data gathering and analysis would be done or when informed policy making based on that analysis would take place. The last paragraph in your email left me to conclude you suggested doing this later. I quote: > >> Let's not try to decide exactly what to do today, when we lack >> information. Instead, let's push this EXTRAORDINARY decision making >> into the future where it belongs, at the time when the >> EXTRAORDINARY event takes place. Oh well... > Do you think it is wise to decide now, without knowing what the RIPE > monthly run-rate is or when RIPE's address supply is projected to > runout? My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is we continue with the current policies for IPv4 until the NCC has no more left. There doesn't seem much point or benefit from tinkering at the margins. I can't see policy changes resulting in a fairer or improved allocation of the remaining space: for some definitions of fair and improve. And as my previous message pointed out, I think there are a number of risks in deviating from those policies when the crunch points are just around the corner. > In addition, I suggest that the allocation of RIPE's IPv4 inventory > after IANA runout, should be confirmed by a general meeting > which seems to me to be a very fair and open way to do this. No, it's not a fair or open way to do that. [What about those who can't physically get to the meeting? Web/phone participation doesn't count. Who gets to vote?] It's also incompatible with the current Policy Development Process which is based on list-driven, bottom-up consensus. >> Obvious examples of this trouble include >> regulatory interventions, lawsuits, investigations by >> competition authorities and so on. At the point where IANA v4 >> runs out, expect everyone, particularly lawyers and >> governments, to take a much, much closer interest in IP >> When the SS IPv4 starts to sink, the prospect of a >> reasoned discussion reaching an agreed conclusion about who >> does and doesn't get space on the lifeboats which can't >> accommodate everyone don't look good. > > How do you know? We have no crystal balls to predict the future. True. However human nature tells us we can expect an "every man for themself" attitude in such scenarios. IIUC game theory and behavioural economics indicate that approach works best for the individual but worst for the group in these scenarios. > Why do we need to decide this today, when there is little motivation > to reach a decision and not enough information available to make > a decision. For instance we do not know what will be the market > penetration of IPv6 at the point of IANA runout. IMO this is another reason for not even trying to make a decision. The current policy isn't broken and doesn't need fixing. And any tinkering to accommodate scenarios just before or after run-out are not going to make a significant difference. Even if they could take account of all the other imponderables like the then state of IPv6 penetration that you rightly point out can't be predicted. So why bother? >> Carving up the remaining IPv4 space is already controversial. >> After this extraordinary event occurs, will the controversy >> level be lower, about the same or higher? > > Higher. I'm glad we agree about something Michael. :-) > Which is why we need to change policy today so that > after IANA runout, a decision will be made by a more efficient > method. IMO it's going to be impossible to come up with a definition of efficient for this scenario that (a) gets consensus; (b) is meaningful for the last days of v4. From gert at space.net Tue Aug 25 13:34:48 2009 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:34:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4C31@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <6436F3F1-4DAB-44CA-8C0F-E1795B5035A4@rfc1035.com> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4C31@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <20090825113448.GD79272@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:48:37AM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > In addition, I suggest that the allocation of RIPE's IPv4 inventory > after IANA runout, should be confirmed by a general meeting > which seems to me to be a very fair and open way to do this. Address Policy is not made at the RIPE General Meeting. *Especially* since the general meeting is not "open" to the whole community. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Aug 25 13:41:55 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:41:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 In-Reply-To: <666D673B-50BB-4601-8821-9D0AD3C98645@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4E83@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > No, it's not a fair or open way to do that. [What about those > who can't physically get to the meeting? Web/phone > participation doesn't count. Who gets to vote?] If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no difference. > It's also > incompatible with the current Policy Development Process > which is based on list-driven, bottom-up consensus. The extraordinary general meeting would not be about changing policy, it would be about an activity plan to divide up the remaining inventory of IPv4 addresses between the applicants who have requested a piece of the final /8. > > Why do we need to decide this today, when there is little > motivation > > to reach a decision and not enough information available to make a > > decision. For instance we do not know what will be the market > > penetration of IPv6 at the point of IANA runout. > > IMO this is another reason for not even trying to make a > decision. The current policy isn't broken and doesn't need > fixing. This is also a reasonable approach, i.e. I have suggested option c) but your suggestion of option d) is also worthy of consideration. > I'm glad we agree about something Michael. :-) Perhaps we agree that simply re-evaluating options a) and b) is not the best way to proceed? --Michael Dillon From Marcus.Gerdon at versatel.de Tue Aug 25 14:05:36 2009 From: Marcus.Gerdon at versatel.de (Marcus.Gerdon) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:05:36 +0200 Subject: AW: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 Message-ID: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB80104698E@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> Michael, sounds like your company is faring rather well... sending at least one person to any meeting, just jet'ing for a weeks meeting to Dubai... You've supposedly not seen any 'costs optimized by reduced staff' guy around for a long time. Maybe I should apply for a job? > If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough > to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. > Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because > they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no > difference. I think you're definitely wrong on this - and imho somewhat quite arrogant by that. RIPE's open to anybody, anybody being allowed to become a member. But excluding a bunch of members from the meetings by sheer cost (or time) is fine for you. The current practice of having to be physically on site for a vote has to stop soonest possible. We're in internet business - and rely on phys presence. That's ridicilous. Btw: No need to hint for proxy votes - who's trusting opponents? And what are proxy votes good for when not having heard or seen the discussion in before? Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon at versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Marc L?tzenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von > michael.dillon at bt.com > Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. August 2009 13:42 > An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Betreff: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 > > > > No, it's not a fair or open way to do that. [What about those > > who can't physically get to the meeting? Web/phone > > participation doesn't count. Who gets to vote?] > > If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough > to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. > Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because > they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no > difference. > > > It's also > > incompatible with the current Policy Development Process > > which is based on list-driven, bottom-up consensus. > > The extraordinary general meeting would not be about changing > policy, it would be about an activity plan to divide up the > remaining inventory of IPv4 addresses between the applicants > who have requested a piece of the final /8. > > > > Why do we need to decide this today, when there is little > > motivation > > > to reach a decision and not enough information available > to make a > > > decision. For instance we do not know what will be the market > > > penetration of IPv6 at the point of IANA runout. > > > > IMO this is another reason for not even trying to make a > > decision. The current policy isn't broken and doesn't need > > fixing. > > This is also a reasonable approach, i.e. I have suggested option > c) but your suggestion of option d) is also worthy of consideration. > > > I'm glad we agree about something Michael. :-) > > Perhaps we agree that simply re-evaluating options a) and b) is > not the best way to proceed? > > --Michael Dillon > > > From Andreas at Schachtner.eu Tue Aug 25 15:29:36 2009 From: Andreas at Schachtner.eu (Andreas Schachtner) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:29:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4A69@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4A69@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <20090825132937.0283BDAFA9@linux.local> Hi, ... > This is important, because if the period of time is short enough, we > could ask all LIRs to tell RIPE what their IP address requirements > are month by month. Then RIPE can see how much the inventory is > oversubscribed, and allocate the entire inventory at one time, dividing > it up so that everyone runs out at the same time. > > Why do this? So that we help ISPs who are providing IPv6 Internet access > to get market penetration for their services by creating yet another > media event. A scheme like a) allocate one fixed block size, or b) > starve > everyone equally, will result in everyone running out at different > times. > This makes it harder to get the attention of the market and sell IPv6 > services in sufficient volume. Two remarks on this: {this is more a formal one] (1) in a previous poll from Sander, we'd a large majority of comments against bundling IPv4 use with IPv6 (deployment). This looks like getting in through the backdoor. (2) changing run-rates will render your approach useless. And it is very likely, that run-rates will change at the end of life cycle. Regards, Andreas -- -- Andreas Schachtner afs Holding GmbH communication technologies & solutions http://afs-com.de/ Geschaeftsfuehrer Andreas Schachtner HRB 15448, Amtsgericht Dortmund -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: not available URL: From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Aug 25 16:34:46 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:34:46 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 In-Reply-To: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB80104698E@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD51EA@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > sounds like your company is faring rather well... sending at > least one person to any meeting, just jet'ing for a weeks > meeting to Dubai... You've supposedly not seen any 'costs > optimized by reduced staff' guy around for a long time. There are dozens of cost optimization guys around, but the cost of one RIPE extraordinary general meeting doesn't worry us because we are putting a lot of effort into IPv6 trials and we can see light at the end of the tunnel. Don't ever forget that soon nobody will really NEED IPv4 addresses any more because IPv6 is a viable alternative. If your company isn't doing internal trials of IPv6 with selected customers, then yes, you should probably start looking for another job. > > If some people feel that the meeting is not important > enough to make > > an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. > > Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or > because they've > > already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no difference. > > I think you're definitely wrong on this - and imho somewhat > quite arrogant by that. > > RIPE's open to anybody, anybody being allowed to become a > member. But excluding a bunch of members from the meetings by > sheer cost (or time) is fine for you. The current practice of > having to be physically on site for a vote has to stop > soonest possible. Please do not criticise my proposal because you disagree with how RIPE currently functions. If you have a criticism with how RIPE members vote, please take it to the appropriate venue. If RIPE does begin to allow remote participation and voting in a general meeting, that doesn't change my proposal in any way. > We're in internet business - and rely on > phys presence. That's ridicilous. It's also ridiculous that we have so little IPv6 deployment that we have to argue over how to distribute the last few crumbs of IPv4 addressing. Why does the Internet still rely on this ancient protocol over 10 years after IPv6 was introduced? So, how do you propose to distribute the final /8 fairly? --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Aug 25 16:37:05 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:37:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 In-Reply-To: <20090825132937.0283BDAFA9@linux.local> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD5204@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > (2) changing run-rates will render your approach useless. And > it is very likely, that run-rates will change at the end of > life cycle. That is why I would like to see a decision based on run-rates in the future, when those run-rates are known to everyone. In the meantime RIPE can regularly publish run-rates so that when the final /8 comes to RIPE, we have a standard of comparison. --Michael Dillon From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Aug 25 17:07:57 2009 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:07:57 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD5204@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD5204@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <51D28D10-CEF0-4306-90BB-2D5B759D846E@rfc1035.com> On 25 Aug 2009, at 15:37, wrote: > That is why I would like to see a decision based on run-rates > in the future, when those run-rates are known to everyone. EH? You said earlier that no-one has a crystal ball. So predictions of future run-rates are just that: predictions. A policy based on those predictions therefore makes no sense. We might as well be developing policies based on the number of unicorns each LIR has. Or says they plan to have when the last /8 leaves IANA. Anyway, let's get back to the original poster's point. What use is a policy developed today based on we *think* future run-rates will be. What's the point of that when the actual run rates at the point when this policy took effect would almost certainly be different from those predictions? What is there to be gained from such a policy? What would such a policy achieve that the current policy doesn't? From sander at steffann.nl Tue Aug 25 20:37:13 2009 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:37:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4E83@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD4E83@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <6096E853-BA3D-4225-B86D-225BCE37182E@steffann.nl> Hello Michael, >> No, it's not a fair or open way to do that. [What about those >> who can't physically get to the meeting? Web/phone >> participation doesn't count. Who gets to vote?] > > If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough > to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. > Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because > they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no > difference. I want to end this discussion right here. The way RIPE makes its policies is very open, clear and not open for discussion. (At least not now and not on this list) You can find the PDP here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/pdp.html . This working group will follow the PDP. I agree that the allocation of the last IPv4 addresses is an extraordinary situation, but we will not ignore our own rules because of that. If you do not agree with the PDP I think the RIPE chair (chair at ripe.net) is the right person to talk to. Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Aug 25 21:53:09 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:53:09 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 In-Reply-To: <6096E853-BA3D-4225-B86D-225BCE37182E@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD546A@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > Hello Michael, > I want to end this discussion right here. The way RIPE makes > its policies is very open, clear and not open for discussion. I never suggested that RIPE change the way that it makes its policies. Instead I suggested a policy that includes a checkpoint for the general members to approve a future action plan, just before RIPE actually carries out the action plan. > . This working group will follow the PDP. I have never suggested that the WG should not follow the PDP. I would expect that if RIPE adopts any policy related to special allocation rules after IANA runout, that the policy would be developed according to the PDP. Please note that if you go back to my original suggestion and remove the extraordinary general meeting from it, that does not substantially change the suggestion. This whole confusion about what members meetings can do is a red herring. I'm beginning to wonder why there is such an uproar about the RIPE members making a decision... --Michael Dillon From nigel at titley.com Wed Aug 26 04:20:29 2009 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:20:29 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD51EA@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD51EA@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <4A949BED.7010604@titley.com> > Please do not criticise my proposal because you disagree with > how RIPE currently functions. If you have a criticism with how > RIPE members vote, please take it to the appropriate venue. If > RIPE does begin to allow remote participation and voting in a > general meeting, that doesn't change my proposal in any way. > It has been pointed out several times in this thread that RIPE (NCC) general meetings have nothing to do with policy and that RIPE meetings (or WG meetings) do not vote. So discussions of remote voting, or voting in general, have no place here. Nigel From Marcus.Gerdon at versatel.de Wed Aug 26 09:42:42 2009 From: Marcus.Gerdon at versatel.de (Marcus.Gerdon) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:42:42 +0200 Subject: AW: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 Message-ID: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB801046C03@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> Hi! > There are dozens of cost optimization guys around, but > the cost of one RIPE extraordinary general meeting doesn't > worry us because we are putting a lot of effort into IPv6 > trials and we can see light at the end of the tunnel. What's meetings got to do with IPv6 trials? > If your company isn't doing internal trials of IPv6 with > selected customers, then yes, you should probably start > looking for another job. Did you take a look at the v6-dfz before writing this? At a quick glance in Frankfurt I see slightly more v6 downstream asn advertised from 8881 than from 5400. ;-) But enough on that... that's no topic for an apwg discussion. Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon at versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Marc L?tzenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von > michael.dillon at bt.com > Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. August 2009 16:35 > An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Betreff: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 > > > > sounds like your company is faring rather well... sending at > > least one person to any meeting, just jet'ing for a weeks > > meeting to Dubai... You've supposedly not seen any 'costs > > optimized by reduced staff' guy around for a long time. > > There are dozens of cost optimization guys around, but > the cost of one RIPE extraordinary general meeting doesn't > worry us because we are putting a lot of effort into IPv6 > trials and we can see light at the end of the tunnel. > > Don't ever forget that soon nobody will really NEED IPv4 > addresses any more because IPv6 is a viable alternative. > If your company isn't doing internal trials of IPv6 with > selected customers, then yes, you should probably start > looking for another job. > > > > If some people feel that the meeting is not important > > enough to make > > > an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. > > > Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or > > because they've > > > already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no difference. > > > > I think you're definitely wrong on this - and imho somewhat > > quite arrogant by that. > > > > RIPE's open to anybody, anybody being allowed to become a > > member. But excluding a bunch of members from the meetings by > > sheer cost (or time) is fine for you. The current practice of > > having to be physically on site for a vote has to stop > > soonest possible. > > Please do not criticise my proposal because you disagree with > how RIPE currently functions. If you have a criticism with how > RIPE members vote, please take it to the appropriate venue. If > RIPE does begin to allow remote participation and voting in a > general meeting, that doesn't change my proposal in any way. > > > We're in internet business - and rely on > > phys presence. That's ridicilous. > > It's also ridiculous that we have so little IPv6 deployment that > we have to argue over how to distribute the last few crumbs of > IPv4 addressing. Why does the Internet still rely on this ancient > protocol over 10 years after IPv6 was introduced? > > So, how do you propose to distribute the final /8 fairly? > > --Michael Dillon > > From niels=apwg at bakker.net Wed Aug 26 15:04:03 2009 From: niels=apwg at bakker.net (niels=apwg at bakker.net) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:04:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD51EA@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB80104698E@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802CD51EA@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <20090826130402.GH31607@burnout.tpb.net> * michael.dillon at bt.com [Tue 25 Aug 2009, 16:36 CEST]: >Don't ever forget that soon nobody will really NEED IPv4 >addresses any more because IPv6 is a viable alternative. About every other mail I read from you gives me a near-incontrollable impulse to reply with just the following: lolwut -- Niels. From sander at steffann.nl Thu Aug 27 12:48:23 2009 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:48:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1 Message-ID: <2007.80.101.103.96.1251370103.squirrel@webmail.sintact.nl> Hello again, I'm trying to keep this policy proposal discussion on-topic. We have already discussed two parts, and we should really focus on this third part now. If we keep going back to the beginning we will never get work done... I'll repeat my questions to the list: - If a company demonstrates the need for a /20, we could give them (for example) a /26. Smaller organisations would end up with even smaller amounts of address space. Currently prefixes longer than a /24 can not really be routed on 'the Internet' (for some definition of 'Internet'). Do we expect this to change, or do we have to make the minimum allocation size a /24 so that LIRs receiving address space can use it? - Do we want a maximum allocation size? This might be useful to prevent a few large companies to grab most of the address space, but it might also be unnecessary. - Do we want to make exceptions for certain situations where downscaling is not possible? For example a server farm with many HTTPS sites can't use less IP addresses than the number of websites (with the current protocols). Jim is suggesting that we don't change any policies for the final /8. That would be a downscaling factor of 1. With the current allocation rate of the RIPE NCC (see http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html, graph 28e) that would mean that the final /8 will be allocated in about 4 to 6 months. Michael proposed to hold a meeting to divide the final /8. After that happens a new entrant will not be able to get any IPv4 addresses from the NCC. This might be seen as the established companies (us) trying to prevent new competition... We now have the chance to prevent that situation, and we should make good policies now to prevent that from happening. At least in the first couple of years after IANA runs out of IPv4 addresses. We can't just think about the current LIRs. If we do a bad/anti-competitive/etc job here some governments will have a good excuse to take the IP address allocation right away from the RIPE community. They might leave us alone, but do we really want to count on that? Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Aug 27 14:12:32 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:12:32 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1 In-Reply-To: <2007.80.101.103.96.1251370103.squirrel@webmail.sintact.nl> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802D5093E@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > Do we expect this to change, > or do we have to make the minimum allocation size a /24 so > that LIRs receiving address space can use it? There should be a minimum and it should be /24. However, we should call for proposals/analysis on changing this minimum. It may be possible and worthwhile to change the minimum even if this is only widely implemented by RIPE region ISPs. But for now we don't have the data to support a change. > - Do we want a maximum allocation size? This might be useful > to prevent a few large companies to grab most of the address > space, but it might also be unnecessary. Yes, we want a maximum and I suggest that the maximum be calculated differently for each ISP, based on their run-rates, in order that the TIME of final runout is roughly matched for all ISPs getting allocations after IANA runout. > - Do we want to make exceptions for certain situations where > downscaling is not possible? For example a server farm with > many HTTPS sites can't use less IP addresses than the number > of websites (with the current protocols). Some business models are dead-ends and it is not RIPE's business to support them longer than their natural life. The HTTPS server farm definitely falls into this category. If broadband ISPs can make the effort to go to IPv6, then so can other business model ISPs. > Jim is suggesting that we don't change any policies for the > final /8. That would be a downscaling factor of 1. With the > current allocation rate of the RIPE NCC (see > http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html, graph 28e) that > would mean that the final /8 will be allocated in about 4 to > 6 months. Michael proposed to hold a meeting to divide the final /8. Some people seem to be violently opposed to a meeting, so let's consider it this way. After IANA runout, RIPE has a severely limited inventory of IPv4 consisting of the final /8 and some additional blocks that are not yet allocated. This inventory is not likely to grow, because during IPv6 transition, ISPs cannot free up IPv4 blocks in the early stages. Therefore, let's make the decision on how the final INVENTORY of IPv4 addresses is allocated, after IANA runout and based on the data available at that time. This does not necessarily have to be done with a meeting as I suggested. As long as the policy is changed to stop all allocation activity until new rules are agreed, that is sufficient. In fact, since IANA will likely announce when we are getting close to IANA runout, it is likely that there will be enough data available to make the decisions before IANA runout happens (and allocations stop) as long as people are reasonable. > After that happens a new entrant will not be able to get any > IPv4 addresses from the NCC. This might be seen as the > established companies > (us) trying to prevent new competition... ??? After RIPE runs out of IP addresses, we might be seen as anti-competitive? >We now have the > chance to prevent that situation, and we should make good > policies now to prevent that from happening. At least in the > first couple of years after IANA runs out of IPv4 addresses. Are you sure that RIPE will have a sufficient inventory of IP addresses to supply everyone's run-rates for a couple of years after IANA runout? Note that if you have a maximum allocation rule that limits allocations to less than an applicant's needs, that is the same as RIPE running out of IP addresses, from that applicant's point of view. > We can't just think about the current LIRs. If we do a > bad/anti-competitive/etc job here some governments will have > a good excuse to take the IP address allocation right away > from the RIPE community. They might leave us alone, but do we > really want to count on that? I think that this is an overrated fear. As long as RIPE functions as a forum, and has broad participation, governments will not touch it. The biggest danger comes from the current lack of broad participation and excessive cliquism. RIPE really needs to be more proactive in inviting stakeholders in Europe's Internet community to participate in this working group. The danger lies in inaction, not in making sensible policy. --Michael Dillon From sander at steffann.nl Thu Aug 27 14:39:18 2009 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:39:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1 In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802D5093E@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemh ost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802D5093E@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <2696.80.101.103.96.1251376758.squirrel@webmail.sintact.nl> Hi Michael, Thank you for your feedback. > ??? > After RIPE runs out of IP addresses, we might be seen as > anti-competitive? I was thinking about making sure that new companies can have a few IPv4 addresses to be able to talk to the IPv4-only world. If we do that, then nobody can complain. If they think they don't have enough addresses, well, so has the rest of the world. If they can't get any IPv4 addresses at all this might be perceived as unfair or anti-competitive. - Sander From jim at rfc1035.com Thu Aug 27 14:40:17 2009 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:40:17 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1 In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802D5093E@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802D5093E@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <9AF48DE5-93A2-4141-8E90-F27D2DB727F2@rfc1035.com> On 27 Aug 2009, at 13:12, wrote: > The danger lies in inaction, not in making sensible policy. But what if the sensible policy is to do nothing? I really can't see why anyone could have reason to intervene in the dying days of IPv4 if RIPE is sticking by the long-established policies that have served it so well. IMO the danger lies from inventing new policies -- for the sake of being seen to do something it appears -- that may well distort LIR behaviour or introduce artificial barriers for new/late entrants. It's not clear to me what will be gained by having a revised policy for allocations once the NCC gets its last /8. So I think it's reasonable to ask the proponents of these changes to explain why the alterations are better than leaving things as they are. To an extent, I'm playing Devil's Advocate. Even so, I would like to be sure we've fully considered the implications of whatever policy changes (or none) are in front of us. From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Aug 27 15:06:10 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:06:10 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1 In-Reply-To: <2696.80.101.103.96.1251376758.squirrel@webmail.sintact.nl> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802DA5CEE@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > > ??? > > After RIPE runs out of IP addresses, we might be seen as > > anti-competitive? > > I was thinking about making sure that new companies can have > a few IPv4 addresses to be able to talk to the IPv4-only > world. If we do that, then nobody can complain. If they think > they don't have enough addresses, well, so has the rest of > the world. If they can't get any IPv4 addresses at all this > might be perceived as unfair or anti-competitive. Fair enough. However this could be solved by the market if some ISPs offer v4-to-v6 gateway services to customers whose networks are pure v6. In the USA, I know of two hosting companies who are working on virtual machine services which will be able t import an existing IPv4 host and run it virtually with v6 connectivity because the v4-to-v6 gateway services are all handled by the container operating system. We are likely to see a number of services that offer to assist companies through the transition. The IPv6 transition will likely provide a small boost to the overall economy at a time when the economy needs all the help that it can get. --Michael Dillon From sander at steffann.nl Thu Aug 27 15:22:17 2009 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:22:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1 In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802DA5CEE@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemh ost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802DA5CEE@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <2993.80.101.103.96.1251379337.squirrel@webmail.sintact.nl> >> I was thinking about making sure that new companies can have >> a few IPv4 addresses to be able to talk to the IPv4-only >> world. If we do that, then nobody can complain. If they think >> they don't have enough addresses, well, so has the rest of >> the world. If they can't get any IPv4 addresses at all this >> might be perceived as unfair or anti-competitive. > > Fair enough. However this could be solved by the market if > some ISPs offer v4-to-v6 gateway services to customers whose > networks are pure v6. That would mean that a new ISP can only enter the market when buying a service from an existing ISP. I don't know if this would be seen as anti-competitive, but I suspect it will. Especially because we could make policy that prevents (well, significantly postpones) that situation. - Sander PS: I make the assumption here that not everything will be reachable over native IPv6 when the new company wants to start. I think this is a reasonable assumption for the first years at least.