From millnert at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 21:29:09 2011 From: millnert at gmail.com (Martin Millnert) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 15:29:09 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI request is turned down for my multihomed hosting facility - Why? In-Reply-To: <20110330111409.GC30227@Space.Net> References: <2ABEFF2C-BADB-46AF-A6D7-678715758F1B@ventiro.se> <4D92F2F2.2060905@rybnet.pl> <05A36A19-DD6E-4955-BBDB-F7712DBEBE11@ventiro.se> <20110330111409.GC30227@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi, On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:54:55AM +0200, Jan Tuomi wrote: >> Setting up an SSL-webhost is also sub-allocating? > > This is very grey area. ?Technically, it's "giving an address to a 3rd > party", but personally I'd see this is as "it's still the same machine > under *your* control". Right. I want to take this further by revisiting some core networking principles with a touch of v6: Control of usage of addresses, even in times of /64 v6 SLAAC-enabled LANs, remains with the party that switches and routes them, normally but not necessarily, to and on the Internet. This is the reality. Consider this for a while. APWG is fooling itself in thinking that it can control what addresses anyone configures on a host. Influence (in only a small way), yes. Control, no. The core registry function of RIPE *is* to facilitate Internetworking by avoiding addressing collisions. Put different, RIPE concerns itself primarily with assisting in organizing addressing, allowing networks to communicate, *not* specific hosts. The networks concern themselves with making hosts communicate. A host can have any address configured, free of consequence, until it is connected to a network. Much of the pain from APWGs policies comes, IMO, from the distance of the disconnect a policy has with reality. The further the disconnect, the greater the resulting pain and lies. Close the gap, reduce the pain and lies. PIv6 has a very big disconnect with reality right now IMO, which lately has become very evident. Tieing the "user" of addresses (in RIR sense) closer to the party that routes and switches them(*), ie the network, and away from the ones who configures them on a host stack, is 100% in line with RIPE's role as a registry. In IPv6 with SLAAC, this is particularly true. * For administrative reasons, it becomes at some point very burdensome to track usage (in RIR sense) at the RIR level of individual end-users (ie, home users) which is why a lower threshold of "allocations" in IPv4 of /30 was established long time ago. I believe the equivalent value in IPv6 is /48, which in itself probably is subject to considerations w.r.t BCP157 now. Conceptually, each organizational level in the addressing hierarchy should (for abuse- and law-enforcement purposes, I suppose..) be able to provide a pointer, a next-hop to the next entity in charge of something. In theory, RIPE's only pointer to resources delegated to a LIR could be to the LIR itself (who of course is free to keep its record in a public database such as RIPE's). > But we already know that datacenter has all the range from "very obviously > *not* sub-allocation" to "very obviously this *is* sub-allocation", and > as such, distinction between "what is OK" and "what is not" is tricky at > best. So let's substitute it for something that is clear, logical and consequential. :) Regards, Martin From ahmed at tamkien.com Wed Apr 6 17:30:23 2011 From: ahmed at tamkien.com (Ahmed Abu-Abed) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 18:30:23 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE IPv4 Pool Graph Message-ID: <937CF272E7D54FBB95700FDE01C2B578@mTOSH> Greetings, RIPE NCC is now publishing an IPv4 pool graph with weekly updates, and the latest data show five /8 blocks are remaining. More at http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph Regards, -Ahmed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Tue Apr 12 09:48:29 2011 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:48:29 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Status of 2010-01 (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies) Message-ID: <20110412074829.GJ30227@Space.Net> Dear AP Working Group, RIPE Policy Proposal 2010-01 (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies) concluded its Last Call phase on 28 December 2011. After consultation between the Working Group Chairs, however, it has been decided that reporting of the process in this case was insufficient, that is, the working group has not been properly informed why the WG chairs have decided to go to Last Call. It has therefore been decided that the Last Call phase for this proposal should be repeated. Emilio will announce a new Last Call phase today or tomorrow. The reason why we decided to go for Last Call in the first place, and are now doing it again: - Feedback to the mailing list regarding the proposal itself has been mostly positive. - A few people voiced concerns in the mailing list discussion, and at the RIPE 61 meeting, but when specifically asked at the RIPE 61 meeting whether they wanted to see changes now or go ahead with the proposal, those raising the concerns agreed to move forward with the Policy Development Process and look at changes in future revisions. - It was agreed that it's important to have a reservation for temporary IPv4 assignments in place while there still *is* something to reserve - and that the specific details of the implementation can always be changed later on. You can read the full text of the proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-01.html The (draft) meetings from the RIPE 61 APWG meeting can be found here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ap/minutes/minutes-from-ripe-61 (just search for 2010-01) Gert Doering -- APWG Chair -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gert at space.net Tue Apr 12 10:00:51 2011 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:00:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Status of 2010-01 (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies) In-Reply-To: <20110412074829.GJ30227@Space.Net> References: <20110412074829.GJ30227@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20110412080051.GL30227@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:48:29AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > RIPE Policy Proposal 2010-01 (Temporary Internet Number Assignment > Policies) concluded its Last Call phase on 28 December 2011. After Of course that was 28 December 2010. Sorry. But the rest of the message holds - "it was in Last Call, but proper announcements were missing, and so we get to do it again". Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: From emadaio at ripe.net Tue Apr 12 17:15:22 2011 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:15:22 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 New Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) Message-ID: <20110412151523.228D96A002@postboy.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, Following the feedback received, the draft document for the proposal described in 2008-08 was edited and published. The new impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 26 April 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From Klaus.Kinder at telekom.de Tue Apr 12 17:56:47 2011 From: Klaus.Kinder at telekom.de (Klaus.Kinder at telekom.de) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:56:47 +0200 Subject: AW: [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 New Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) Message-ID: <69C47F77528F0D44A77D95CA38CBC4934DC91EDA7B@HE111526.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Gesendet von meinem Windows? Phone. ----- Urspr?ngliche Nachricht ----- Von: Emilio Madaio Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 17:16 An: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 New Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) Dear Colleagues, Following the feedback received, the draft document for the proposal described in 2008-08 was edited and published. The new impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 26 April 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From Klaus.Kinder at telekom.de Tue Apr 12 18:18:41 2011 From: Klaus.Kinder at telekom.de (Klaus.Kinder at telekom.de) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:18:41 +0200 Subject: AW: [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 New Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) Message-ID: <69C47F77528F0D44A77D95CA38CBC4934DC91EDA7D@HE111526.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Gesendet von meinem Windows? Phone. ----- Urspr?ngliche Nachricht ----- Von: Emilio Madaio Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 17:16 An: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 New Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) Dear Colleagues, Following the feedback received, the draft document for the proposal described in 2008-08 was edited and published. The new impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 26 April 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From emadaio at ripe.net Wed Apr 13 11:27:18 2011 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:27:18 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-01 Last Call for Comments (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies) Message-ID: <20110413092718.EB3846A003@postboy.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2010-01 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-01 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 11 May 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From sander at steffann.nl Thu Apr 14 23:35:52 2011 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:35:52 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] APNIC activated to 'Final /8' policy Message-ID: Hi WG, The IPv4 pool of APNIC has just gone below 1 /8. Therefore APNIC is the first RIR who has activated their 'Final /8' policy: http://www.apnic.net/services/apply-for-resources Sander Steffann APWG co-chair From emadaio at ripe.net Fri Apr 15 11:22:35 2011 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:22:35 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) Message-ID: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to the RIPE Document ripe-512,"IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 13 May 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From fweimer at bfk.de Fri Apr 15 11:28:00 2011 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:28:00 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> (Emilio Madaio's message of "Fri\, 15 Apr 2011 11\:22\:35 +0200") References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <82d3kndftr.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Emilio Madaio: > A proposed change to the RIPE Document ripe-512,"IPv6 Address > Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 I think this should be amended to clarify that PI space can be assigned to employees, customers etc. independent of device ownership, using services like RA, reflecting the previous discussion on this list. -- 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 sander at steffann.nl Fri Apr 15 11:33:31 2011 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:33:31 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: <82d3kndftr.fsf@mid.bfk.de> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <82d3kndftr.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: <05DE1F7D-E952-4217-9E22-53FC16425952@steffann.nl> Hi, > I think this should be amended to clarify that PI space can be > assigned to employees, customers etc. independent of device ownership, > using services like RA, reflecting the previous discussion on this > list. To keep things manageable let's not combine different things in one proposal. I understand that there are many people who would like to 'no sub-assignments' part of the PI policy but that is a different issue than the multihoming requirement. Let's discuss that separately. Thanks, Sander APWG co-chair From swmike at swm.pp.se Fri Apr 15 12:01:46 2011 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:01:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Emilio Madaio wrote: > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 13 May 2011. In reading this proposal, I note that the "opposing"-section contains text that opposes the opposing argument. I also feel the opposing text is biased. Generally us ISPs are not worried about RIB capacity, we're worried about FIB capacity. Every PI network carries a global cost because of a DFZ slot that all DFZ routers need to carry. Nonetheless, the important factor for me is: Will it cost the same amount of money per year? This is "tragedy of the commons" problem, so as long as the cost for holding the PI resource is the same before and after this proposal, I don't have any problems with it. If it's all of a sudden a lot cheaper, I oppose the change. Rationale: If someone is willing to spend a substantial amount of money per year to hold a PI, they have a real business need and are willing to back this with cash because it's still cheaper for them. If they don't, then please stop using DFZ resources for no real need. The policy should reflect this fact. If it does after the proposed change, I'm all for it. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From boggits at gmail.com Fri Apr 15 12:28:25 2011 From: boggits at gmail.com (boggits) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:28:25 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: On 15 April 2011 10:22, Emilio Madaio wrote: > A proposed change to the RIPE Document ripe-512,"IPv6 Address > Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. > You can find the full proposal at: > > ? ?http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 Why should a company require PIv6 addressing when the task of renumbering within IPv6 space has become so simple? I'd rather that the size of blocks provided to end users were standardised to reduce the number of possible changes that might be needed, but otherwise this seems to be a request for a change that has no benefit to the operation of the network (even though I can see valid commercial reasons for wanting to do it) We made this mistake with PIv4 please can we not do it again with v6 All that means I'm not in favour of this change. J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476 From ebais at a2b-internet.com Fri Apr 15 12:54:27 2011 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:54:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <001401cbfb5b$7df931b0$79eb9510$@com> Hi Michael, > Nonetheless, the important factor for me is: Will it cost the same amount > of money per year? This is "tragedy of the commons" problem, so as long as > the cost for holding the PI resource is the same before and after this > proposal, I don't have any problems with it. > If it's all of a sudden a lot cheaper, I oppose the change. Initially the proposal did include a change in the cost for PI IPv6, however it was decided to not include that into this discussion as cost for PI isn't decided within the community but in the AGM meeting. Having said this, there will be a public discussion behind this to get input from the community to review the cost of specifically PI IPv6 as input for the chairs to take into the AGM meeting. It wasn't my intention to ask for cheaper PI IPv6, the opposite in fact, I personally think that PI IPv6 should be more expensive than currently especially when the multihoming requirement would be dropped. The proposal as it is, is to have the same requirements for PI IPv6 as one would face if they would signup to become a LIR. Kind regards, Erik Bais From michiel at klaver.it Fri Apr 15 13:04:07 2011 From: michiel at klaver.it (Michiel Klaver) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:04:07 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> On 15-04-2011 12:01, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > If someone is willing to spend a substantial amount of money per year to > hold a PI, they have a real business need and are willing to back this with > cash because it's still cheaper for them. If they don't, then please stop > using DFZ resources for no real need. > Not everything on the internet is a bussiness with needs and a large bag of cash. Please also consider the non-profit organisations with valid reasons of running their own PI network. -- Michiel Klaver IT Professional From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Fri Apr 15 13:19:46 2011 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:19:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:28, boggits wrote: > Why should a company require PIv6 addressing when the task of > renumbering within IPv6 space has become so simple? Why should a company need to renumber using a simple process when there are easier paths? While this policy change will most likely increase the number of global routes, I personally don't think this should become too much of a problem provided the prices keep the same or even increase. As Michiel Klaver pointed out, special, lower, pricing for NFPs might make sense, but this is way outside the scope of this proposal. Long story short, I am in favour of this change. Richard From jim at rfc1035.com Fri Apr 15 13:44:36 2011 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:44:36 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> Message-ID: <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> On 15 Apr 2011, at 12:04, Michiel Klaver wrote: > Not everything on the internet is a bussiness with needs and a large > bag of cash. Please also consider the non-profit organisations with > valid reasons of running their own PI network. If an organisation like that can't afford a few hundred euro for addresses and an ASN, it probably can't afford any money for servers or routers or connectivity or co-lo space or software or a system/ network admin, or lawyers to review contracts, etc, etc. These things are all unavoidable costs of doing business on the interweb, even for non-profits. Supporting (under-funded) public benefit organisations is all well and good. But is it fair to expect the NCC membership to pick up the bill? It doesn't seem right to push costs I can't or won't or don't like to pay on to someone else. Though it is of course lovely for me if I can manipulate the system to decide how your money gets spent in ways for my benefit. Nice work if you can get it... From tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk Fri Apr 15 13:22:54 2011 From: tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:22:54 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: On 15 Apr 2011, at 11:28, boggits wrote: > On 15 April 2011 10:22, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> A proposed change to the RIPE Document ripe-512,"IPv6 Address >> Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. > >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 > > Why should a company require PIv6 addressing when the task of > renumbering within IPv6 space has become so simple? I'm interested: how simple do you think it has become? Tim From immo.ripe at be.free.de Fri Apr 15 14:22:42 2011 From: immo.ripe at be.free.de (Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:22:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Hallo Jim, du schrobst: > On 15 Apr 2011, at 12:04, Michiel Klaver wrote: > > > Not everything on the internet is a bussiness with needs and a large > > bag of cash. Please also consider the non-profit organisations with > > valid reasons of running their own PI network. > If an organisation like that can't afford a few hundred euro for > addresses and an ASN, it probably can't afford any money for servers > or routers or connectivity or co-lo space or software or a system/ > network admin, or lawyers to review contracts, etc, etc. These things > are all unavoidable costs of doing business on the interweb, even for > non-profits. I am working for such a non profit organization voluntarely (as all of our staff does) and I can assure you that fundraising money for servers/routers is not easy for us. When it comes to periodic costs, it is always a trade off between more bandwith/more servers (= increased power costs) and other things (like address space, lir membership fees, etc). So while most end users of independet ressources might not even notice a shift from 50 euros per anno to 500 euros per anno, at least for us that would make things seriously more difficult. After all, thats why we decided not to become a LIR (eventhough it would otherwise fit better then usage of independend ressources). > Supporting (under-funded) public benefit organisations is all well and > good. But is it fair to expect the NCC membership to pick up the bill? What bill exactly? I don't see much costs generated by users of independent ressources. Regards, Immo -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From db-ml at cyberstrider.net Fri Apr 15 14:40:42 2011 From: db-ml at cyberstrider.net (Denesh Bhabuta) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:40:42 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Message-ID: On 15 April 2011 13:22, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg wrote: > I am working for such a non profit organization voluntarely (as all > of our staff does) and I can assure you that fundraising money for > servers/routers is not easy for us. When it comes to periodic costs, it > is always a trade off between more bandwith/more servers (= increased > power costs) and other things (like address space, lir membership fees, > etc). So while most end users of independet ressources might not even > notice a shift from 50 euros per anno to 500 euros per anno, at least > for us that would make things seriously more difficult. After all, thats > why we decided not to become a LIR (eventhough it would otherwise fit > better then usage of independend ressources). I take your point.. but I have to agree with Jim on this one. I have worked for various non-profit organisations and also understand the financial pressures one is under. However non-profit or not-for-profit does not mean, for all intents and purposes, that it should spend aim to spend more than it can afford. Regardless of whether an organisation is for-profit or non-profit, it is a business and must be run like one. Just look at the many charities out there that also run like businesses... and non-profit does not mean it can not make a profit.. just that it has to work on profit-loss neutrality.. and ensure it's costs are met. My biggest bugbear in some non-profits I have worked in was that the 'real' costs were swept under the carpet... Taking it to it's conclusion, if every volunteer in the organisation was to be paid and all costs were considered, what would be the real cost of running the organisation? If it has not been done, then in my opinion, it is a good exercise to do as it will give you the tru value of running the organisation so that in case donations do drop at least you can be prepared with savings. > Supporting (under-funded) public benefit organisations is all well and > > good. But is it fair to expect the NCC membership to pick up the bill? > What bill exactly? I don't see much costs generated by users of > independent ressources. > You mention you are a volunteer in a non-profit organisation. I honestly salute you. However, if you were to charge for your time, how much would the organisation have to pay you? In the same way, whatever resource is being used via RIPE, is a cost to the NCC and that needs to be paid somehow. If it does not come from the PI crowd, then it will come from the membership. That is the 'bill' that Jim is referring to. Regards Denesh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Fri Apr 15 14:58:27 2011 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:58:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 14:40, Denesh Bhabuta wrote: > You mention you are a volunteer in a non-profit organisation. I honestly > salute you. However, if you were to charge for your time, how much would the > organisation have to pay you? This is an excellent argument in favor of lowering costs for NFPs, not against it. But as this is a moral, not a factual, question, it's probably not too much use arguing the point. > In the same way, whatever resource is being used via RIPE, is a cost to the > NCC and that needs to be paid somehow. If it does not come from the PI > crowd, then it will come from the membership. That is the 'bill' that Jim is > referring to. Realistically speaking, there is not much in actual additional costs other than the time to support requests. This could or could not be reflected in the distribution and cut-off limits of the LIR sizing which, in turn, can be influenced and decided upon by the RIPE community. I am not saying that this should be done. I am merely stating that this could make sense and that it's not as clear-cut as you seem to make it appear. Richard From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Fri Apr 15 15:06:09 2011 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:06:09 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Richard Hartmann wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 14:40, Denesh Bhabuta wrote: > >> You mention you are a volunteer in a non-profit organisation. I honestly >> salute you. However, if you were to charge for your time, how much would the >> organisation have to pay you? > > This is an excellent argument in favor of lowering costs for NFPs, not > against it. I wonder whether your organization has approached the electric company in order to receive a NPO discount. -Hank > > But as this is a moral, not a factual, question, it's probably not too > much use arguing the point. > > >> In the same way, whatever resource is being used via RIPE, is a cost to the >> NCC and that needs to be paid somehow. If it does not come from the PI >> crowd, then it will come from the membership. That is the 'bill' that Jim is >> referring to. > > Realistically speaking, there is not much in actual additional costs > other than the time to support requests. > > This could or could not be reflected in the distribution and cut-off > limits of the LIR sizing which, in turn, can be influenced and decided > upon by the RIPE community. > > > I am not saying that this should be done. I am merely stating that > this could make sense and that it's not as clear-cut as you seem to > make it appear. > > > Richard > From matthew.hattersley at vaioni.com Fri Apr 15 15:08:10 2011 From: matthew.hattersley at vaioni.com (Matthew Hattersley) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:08:10 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Message-ID: <1E61B36701968147802416A3DC64E111F0FBFC@vglsrv02.vgl2.office.vaioni.com> I think we should always have a level and equal pricing model for PI, I see no reason why NFP organisations should be subsidised by the same standard that organisations that we may find morally objectionable shouldn't be charged more. -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Richard Hartmann Sent: 15 April 2011 13:58 To: Denesh Bhabuta Cc: Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 14:40, Denesh Bhabuta wrote: > You mention you are a volunteer in a non-profit organisation. I honestly > salute you. However, if you were to charge for your time, how much would the > organisation have to pay you? This is an excellent argument in favor of lowering costs for NFPs, not against it. But as this is a moral, not a factual, question, it's probably not too much use arguing the point. > In the same way, whatever resource is being used via RIPE, is a cost to the > NCC and that needs to be paid somehow. If it does not come from the PI > crowd, then it will come from the membership. That is the 'bill' that Jim is > referring to. Realistically speaking, there is not much in actual additional costs other than the time to support requests. This could or could not be reflected in the distribution and cut-off limits of the LIR sizing which, in turn, can be influenced and decided upon by the RIPE community. I am not saying that this should be done. I am merely stating that this could make sense and that it's not as clear-cut as you seem to make it appear. Richard From immo.ripe at be.free.de Fri Apr 15 15:15:49 2011 From: immo.ripe at be.free.de (Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:15:49 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Message-ID: <20110415131549.GA9877@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Hallo Denesh, du schrobst: > On 15 April 2011 13:22, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg wrote: > > I am working for such a non profit organization voluntarely (as all > > of our staff does) and I can assure you that fundraising money for > > servers/routers is not easy for us. When it comes to periodic costs, it > > is always a trade off between more bandwith/more servers (= increased > > power costs) and other things (like address space, lir membership fees, > > etc). So while most end users of independet ressources might not even > > notice a shift from 50 euros per anno to 500 euros per anno, at least > > for us that would make things seriously more difficult. After all, thats > > why we decided not to become a LIR (eventhough it would otherwise fit > > better then usage of independend ressources). > I take your point.. but I have to agree with Jim on this one. > I have worked for various non-profit organisations and also understand the > financial pressures one is under. However non-profit or not-for-profit does > not mean, for all intents and purposes, that it should spend aim to spend > more than it can afford. Indeed not. From my perspective, it should spend exactly as much money as it can afford and to the benefit of the goals it stand for. > Regardless of whether an organisation is for-profit or non-profit, it is a > business and must be run like one. Just look at the many charities out there > that also run like businesses... and non-profit does not mean it can not > make a profit.. just that it has to work on profit-loss neutrality.. and > ensure it's costs are met. > > My biggest bugbear in some non-profits I have worked in was that the 'real' > costs were swept under the carpet... Taking it to it's conclusion, if every > volunteer in the organisation was to be paid and all costs were considered, > what would be the real cost of running the organisation? Thats simple. To much. That holds for big non-profit organizations like the Red Cross as well as for small one like the one I work for. I think the point in running such an organization is that it is not to be run like an business, just trying to make as much money as possible, but instead trying to generate as most benifit to the community as possible with the given, limited ressources. Obviously, in that case, reducing the real cost is as important as increasing donations. > > Supporting (under-funded) public benefit organisations is all well and > > > good. But is it fair to expect the NCC membership to pick up the bill? > > What bill exactly? I don't see much costs generated by users of > > independent ressources. > You mention you are a volunteer in a non-profit organisation. I honestly > salute you. However, if you were to charge for your time, how much would the > organisation have to pay you? More than it could afford. That also holds for our other volunteers. > In the same way, whatever resource is being used via RIPE, is a cost to the > NCC and that needs to be paid somehow. I still don't see that. It is a cost to run the NCC, surely. And indeed this cost increases with the number of ressources in use. Without being into finances of Ripe NCC i'd assume that the anual 50 euros per ressource should cover the costs generated by the asignment. CMIIW! Still, PI crowd is supporting their LIR to the usually contracted maintainence fee added to the ressources. regards, Immo Ps: i think we get more and more of topic here, is that ok for this list or should we stop here? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From swmike at swm.pp.se Fri Apr 15 15:56:09 2011 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:56:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: <20110415131549.GA9877@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> <20110415131549.GA9877@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg wrote: > I still don't see that. It is a cost to run the NCC, surely. And indeed > this cost increases with the number of ressources in use. Without being > into finances of Ripe NCC i'd assume that the anual 50 euros per > ressource should cover the costs generated by the asignment. CMIIW! For me I don't care where the money goes. A DFZ routing slot is costing money, it's just not costing you money, it's costing "everybody" money, and the cost is that we need routers with bigger FIB sizes the more PIs there are. This has nothing to do with the cost of running RIPE NCC or any other RIR. For me, I don't care if you donate the money to cancer research or physically burn it and spread the ashes, as long as it's costing an adequate amount of money to use this common resource (DFZ slot). -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From ebais at a2b-internet.com Fri Apr 15 16:10:31 2011 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:10:31 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Message-ID: <00cb01cbfb76$e1b72520$a5256f60$@com> Hi Immo, > I am working for such a non profit organization voluntarely (as all of > our staff does) and I can assure you that fundraising money for > servers/routers is not easy for us. When it comes to periodic costs, it > is always a trade off between more bandwith/more servers (= increased > power costs) and other things (like address space, lir membership fees, > etc). So while most end users of independet ressources might not even > notice a shift from 50 euros per anno to 500 euros per anno, at least > for us that would make things seriously more difficult. After all, > thats why we decided not to become a LIR (eventhough it would otherwise > fit better then usage of independend ressources). Looking at the cost for PI purely from the viewpoint of a foundation isn't realistic imho. There are plenty of LIR's that actually sponsor the cost of PI to a foundation, especially if it is strategic for the foundation their operations. Not knowing what kind of foundation you are working for, but foundations that come to my mind that would require PI and multihoming: Wikimedia or AMS-IX or alike. Looking at reasonable cost for PI IPv6 (when the multihoming requirement would be removed) in my opinion, should be around 250 euro yearly. Rationale for that 250 euro cost is: . The cost will most likely be enough to remove IT Pet project requests behind a DSL line @home . That kind of yearly cost for PI IPv6 still provides small business and even non-profits the option to start with IPv6 deployment if it is strategic for them to have their own IP's, without hindering IPv6 adoption and deployment. In fact, when the cost for PI IPv6 would increase but the requirement for multihoming is dropped, SMB's & foundations are in a better place than currently as it will be cheaper for them to use PI IPv6 space. They don't have to setup a complete multi-homed environment, but could just ask their 'ISP of the month' to route their IP space for them and use their redundant setup. Running a multi-homing environment isn't for the fainthearted . . . and certainly not cheap or easy. And if you can't make the (strategic/financial) business case to shell out 250 euro yearly for PI IPv6, you can always ask your ISP for regular PA IPv6. Regards, Erik Bais From immo.ripe at be.free.de Fri Apr 15 16:21:42 2011 From: immo.ripe at be.free.de (Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:21:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> <20110415131549.GA9877@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Message-ID: <20110415142142.GB9877@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Hallo Mikael, du schrobst: > On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg wrote: > > > I still don't see that. It is a cost to run the NCC, surely. And indeed > > this cost increases with the number of ressources in use. Without being > > into finances of Ripe NCC i'd assume that the anual 50 euros per > > ressource should cover the costs generated by the asignment. CMIIW! > For me I don't care where the money goes. A DFZ routing slot is costing > money, it's just not costing you money, it's costing "everybody" money, > and the cost is that we need routers with bigger FIB sizes the more PIs > there are. This has nothing to do with the cost of running RIPE NCC or any > other RIR. I am aware of that. Thats the reason oposed to the proposal originally introduced IMHO. However, how would increasing the cost in that case help? Would your saved ripe membership fees compensate that costs? Or would that minority of non-profit users that cannot afford higher PI prices and thus are not able to operate further make any difference? I think for most PI end-users, the cost of pi space is negligable even if it is as high or higher then xs lir fees compared to the costs generated by the provider (including setup and maintainence of the customer network part). I presume, most user would not even notice that costs, thus it would not lead to a significantly less amount of routes in the DFZ. On the other hand, it would make life more difficult for that few non-profit organizations. After all, i don't really see your point here. Immo -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From matthew.hattersley at vaioni.com Fri Apr 15 16:21:40 2011 From: matthew.hattersley at vaioni.com (Matthew Hattersley) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:21:40 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> <20110415131549.GA9877@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> <20110415142142.GB9877@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Message-ID: <1E61B36701968147802416A3DC64E111F0FC15@vglsrv02.vgl2.office.vaioni.com> I would say the counter argument to this is that the cost of routing reduces over time, obviously not in line with say Moore's law but to look at the prices of a router that can handle a full ipv4 table compared to 5 years ago, the cost difference is drastically lower. Kind Regards, Find Vaioni's latest Terms and Conditions & SLA docs http://www.vaioni.com/tcaupsla.html. http://www.vaioni.com/http://www.cbawards.co.uk/Reader_Vote_3.cfm http://www.vaioni.com/ http://www.twitter.com/vaioni http://www.twitter.com/vaioni Matthew Hattersley Email: mailto:matthew.hattersley at vaioni.com Mobile: Address: 14 Leslie Hough Way Manchester Lancashire M6 6AJ Tel: 0870-160-0650 Ext 201 Fax: 0870-160-0651 Web: http://www.vaioni.com http://www.convergencesummit.co.uk/Exhibitor_List_North.cfm#Exhibitor_285The information transmitted in and with this email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not represent those of the Company. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer. Please also note, Vaioni filter incoming email for spam and inappropriate words. Unfortunately this does mean that sometimes genuine messages can be filtered out. Although we take measures to recover such messages, it must not be assumed that an email has been received by us and important communications should always be followed up by a phone call, fax or printed copy. -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg Sent: 15 April 2011 15:22 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space Hallo Mikael, du schrobst: > On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg wrote: > > > I still don't see that. It is a cost to run the NCC, surely. And indeed > > this cost increases with the number of ressources in use. Without being > > into finances of Ripe NCC i'd assume that the anual 50 euros per > > ressource should cover the costs generated by the asignment. CMIIW! > For me I don't care where the money goes. A DFZ routing slot is costing > money, it's just not costing you money, it's costing "everybody" money, > and the cost is that we need routers with bigger FIB sizes the more PIs > there are. This has nothing to do with the cost of running RIPE NCC or any > other RIR. I am aware of that. Thats the reason oposed to the proposal originally introduced IMHO. However, how would increasing the cost in that case help? Would your saved ripe membership fees compensate that costs? Or would that minority of non-profit users that cannot afford higher PI prices and thus are not able to operate further make any difference? I think for most PI end-users, the cost of pi space is negligable even if it is as high or higher then xs lir fees compared to the costs generated by the provider (including setup and maintainence of the customer network part). I presume, most user would not even notice that costs, thus it would not lead to a significantly less amount of routes in the DFZ. On the other hand, it would make life more difficult for that few non-profit organizations. After all, i don't really see your point here. Immo -- From gert at space.net Fri Apr 15 16:33:46 2011 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:33:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: <1E61B36701968147802416A3DC64E111F0FC15@vglsrv02.vgl2.office.vaioni.com> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> <20110415131549.GA9877@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> <20110415142142.GB9877@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> <1E61B36701968147802416A3DC64E111F0FC15@vglsrv02.vgl2.office.vaioni.com> Message-ID: <20110415143346.GM30227@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 03:21:40PM +0100, Matthew Hattersley wrote: > I would say the counter argument to this is that the cost of routing > reduces over time, obviously not in line with say Moore's law but to > look at the prices of a router that can handle a full ipv4 table > compared to 5 years ago, the cost difference is drastically lower. Is that so? We paid significantly more for the box that handles 1 million FIB entries as opposed to the box that handles 256k entries. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? 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 matthew.hattersley at vaioni.com Fri Apr 15 16:37:11 2011 From: matthew.hattersley at vaioni.com (Matthew Hattersley) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:37:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> <20110415131549.GA9877@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> <20110415142142.GB9877@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> <1E61B36701968147802416A3DC64E111F0FC15@vglsrv02.vgl2.office.vaioni.com> <20110415143346.GM30227@Space.Net> Message-ID: <1E61B36701968147802416A3DC64E111F0FC1A@vglsrv02.vgl2.office.vaioni.com> To get specific, we had a Cisco 7206VXR NPE400 to handle 256k which we bought for around ?13k around 6-7 years ago. Last month we bought a Cisco 7606 with a RSP720 to handle the 1m+ mark. Cost us ?10k. That's my cards on the table. Kind Regards, Find Vaioni's latest Terms and Conditions & SLA docs http://www.vaioni.com/tcaupsla.html. http://www.vaioni.com/http://www.cbawards.co.uk/Reader_Vote_3.cfm http://www.vaioni.com/ http://www.twitter.com/vaioni http://www.twitter.com/vaioni Matthew Hattersley Email: mailto:matthew.hattersley at vaioni.com Mobile: Address: 14 Leslie Hough Way Manchester Lancashire M6 6AJ Tel: 0870-160-0650 Ext 201 Fax: 0870-160-0651 Web: http://www.vaioni.com http://www.convergencesummit.co.uk/Exhibitor_List_North.cfm#Exhibitor_285The information transmitted in and with this email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not represent those of the Company. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer. Please also note, Vaioni filter incoming email for spam and inappropriate words. Unfortunately this does mean that sometimes genuine messages can be filtered out. Although we take measures to recover such messages, it must not be assumed that an email has been received by us and important communications should always be followed up by a phone call, fax or printed copy. -----Original Message----- From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at space.net] Sent: 15 April 2011 15:34 To: Matthew Hattersley Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space Hi, On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 03:21:40PM +0100, Matthew Hattersley wrote: > I would say the counter argument to this is that the cost of routing > reduces over time, obviously not in line with say Moore's law but to > look at the prices of a router that can handle a full ipv4 table > compared to 5 years ago, the cost difference is drastically lower. Is that so? We paid significantly more for the box that handles 1 million FIB entries as opposed to the box that handles 256k entries. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? 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 immo.ripe at be.free.de Fri Apr 15 16:55:45 2011 From: immo.ripe at be.free.de (Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:55:45 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: <00cb01cbfb76$e1b72520$a5256f60$@com> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> <00cb01cbfb76$e1b72520$a5256f60$@com> Message-ID: <20110415145545.GA15252@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Hallo Erik, du schrobst: > Hi Immo, > > I am working for such a non profit organization voluntarely (as all of > > our staff does) and I can assure you that fundraising money for > > servers/routers is not easy for us. When it comes to periodic costs, it > > is always a trade off between more bandwith/more servers (= increased > > power costs) and other things (like address space, lir membership fees, > > etc). So while most end users of independet ressources might not even > > notice a shift from 50 euros per anno to 500 euros per anno, at least > > for us that would make things seriously more difficult. After all, > > thats why we decided not to become a LIR (eventhough it would otherwise > > fit better then usage of independend ressources). > Looking at the cost for PI purely from the viewpoint of a foundation isn't > realistic imho. Agreed, and that was not my intention. However, IMO the non profit organization viewpoint should also be considered, and thats why I joined the discussion. > There are plenty of LIR's that actually sponsor the cost of PI to a > foundation, especially if it is strategic for the foundation their > operations. > > Not knowing what kind of foundation you are working for, but foundations > that come to my mind that would require PI and multihoming: > > Wikimedia or AMS-IX or alike. In my case, it is a provider of services for various group, among others political activists. In that case, multihoming and independent ressources means also independence from your ISP (as you have multiple of them and he is not connected to your ressources) and thus it is more likely to get around short handed reactions on law-enforcement-inquires and simmelar political pressure. Thats why we are multihomed and go for our own ressources instead of housing our stuff in a large datacenter with resources from some cheap upstream provider. > Looking at reasonable cost for PI IPv6 (when the multihoming requirement > would be removed) in my opinion, should be around 250 euro yearly. > > Rationale for that 250 euro cost is: > > . The cost will most likely be enough to remove IT Pet project > requests behind a DSL line @home Are there a reasonable number of that? I personally don't see that they are commen, not even in the network geek community. > . That kind of yearly cost for PI IPv6 still provides small business > and even non-profits the option to start with IPv6 deployment if it is > strategic > for them to have their own IP's, without hindering IPv6 adoption and > deployment. From our particular point of view, if I assume 250eur not only for IPv6 PI but also for IPv4 PI and AS numbers, we would be already above the XS membership fee. > And if you can't make the (strategic/financial) business case to shell out > 250 euro yearly for PI IPv6, you can always ask your ISP for regular PA > IPv6. It's certainly mostly better then going for PI if you aren't in a multihomed environment. I actually see more points against dropping the multihomed requirement then pro increasing the fees in your reasining. Regards, Immo -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Fri Apr 15 17:07:24 2011 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:07:24 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Message-ID: On 15 Apr 2011, at 13:58, Richard Hartmann wrote: > This is an excellent argument in favor of lowering costs for NFPs, not > against it. > > But as this is a moral, not a factual, question, it's probably not too > much use arguing the point. Indeed. However it's rather ironic that some non-profits who are not NCC members seem to be complaining about fees. Since they can't/won't become members they're not in a position to influence the charging scheme. From gert at Space.Net Fri Apr 15 19:39:06 2011 From: gert at Space.Net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:39:06 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AP meeting at RIPE 62 - Agenda draft Message-ID: <20110415173906.GA5100@Space.Net> Hi APWG folks, RIPE meeting orga, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Amsterdam in the following three time slots: Thursday, May 05, 09:00 - 10:30 Thursday, May 05, 11:00 - 12:30 Friday, May 06, 09:00 - 11:30 The exact time lines depend a bit on how much discussion is going on, so we might move items one time slot "up" or "down". If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or of we need to change anything, please let us know. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. Current Policy Topics - Emilio Madaio - global policy overview "what's going on?" - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) - overview over concluded proposals in the RIPE region since RIPE61 2010-05 Global Policy for IPv4 ... post exhaustion - withdrawn 2010-06 Registration Requirements for IPv6 ... Assignments - accepted 2010-07 Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Addr. ... Policy for IXP - withdrawn 2010-02 Allocations from the last /8 - accepted 2008-07 Effcient Use of Historical IPv4 Resources - withdrawn 2010-01 Temporary Internet Number Assignment Polices - Last Call - brief overview over new proposals (2011-01, 2011-02) C. Document Cosmetic Surgeries Project - Emilio Madaio - update on current status - how to go forward? D. On IPv6 Documentation Requirements - Marco Hogewoning Short presentation explaining how the policy change 2010-06 and AGGREGATED-BY-LIR affects day-to-day business for LIRs assigning IPv6 blocks to end users. E. Rough Edges of the current policies Report from the RIPE NCC Registration Services department on issues and unintended side-effects showing up in the daily implementation of the RIPE policies. o policy for upgrade of "initial /32 allocation" assigned to large carriers to "something large enough for their needs" (Explanation how these cases are currently handled, Alex Le Heux) o IPv6 PI discussions between RIPE members and the NCC RS (Explanation to the audience where the "sore spots" are, Alex L.H.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- L. On IPv6 PI Policy Discussion how the IPv6 PA/PI policies can be reworked in a fundamental way to better fit the needs of all IPv6 Users. Discussion led by working group chairs. M. Discussion of open policy proposals - IPv6 related 2011-02 (IPv6 PI multihoming) N. On Transfer Guidelines - David Wilson bringing non-obvious problems with transfers into the open goal: write a RIPE BCP document ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Friday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S. More Rough Edges of the current policies "if more things show up" T. Discussion of open policy proposals 2006-05 IPv4 PI Assignment Size [ONGOING] 2008-08 Initial Certification Policy for (...) Address Space Holders [ONGOING] 2010-01 Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies [ONGOING] 2011-01 Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA [NEW policy proposal] Y. Open Policy Hour "The Open Policy Hour (OPH) is a showcase for your policy ideas. If you have a policy proposal you'd like to debut, prior to formally submitting it, here is your opportunity." (Idea from ARIN policy meeting) Z. AOB -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? 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 drc at virtualized.org Fri Apr 15 21:47:45 2011 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:47:45 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <861D8741-03C5-4FEB-B7D2-B7B10157A694@virtualized.org> On Apr 15, 2011, at 4:44 AM, Jim Reid wrote: > On 15 Apr 2011, at 12:04, Michiel Klaver wrote: >> Not everything on the internet is a bussiness with needs and a large bag of cash. Please also consider the non-profit organisations with valid reasons of running their own PI network. > Supporting (under-funded) public benefit organisations is all well and good. But is it fair to expect the NCC membership to pick up the bill? Long ago in a different universe, another RIR had a policy that organizations could petition the RIR membership (though the executive council) for fees to be waived. This was seen as a way in which folks (particularly in developing countries) who were unable to afford the registry fees could have those fees subsidized by the membership in an open and transparent manner. Don't know if that policy was actually used... Regards, -drc From Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl Sat Apr 16 12:27:37 2011 From: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl (Piotr Strzyzewski) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:27:37 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: <20110415145545.GA15252@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> <00cb01cbfb76$e1b72520$a5256f60$@com> <20110415145545.GA15252@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Message-ID: <20110416102736.GA25464@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:55:45PM +0200, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg wrote: > From our particular point of view, if I assume 250eur not only for IPv6 PI > but also for IPv4 PI and AS numbers, we would be already above the XS > membership fee. As far as I remember, ASN is independent resource and is not included in the LIR fee (is extra paid). Still, XS membership fee is 1300 EUR/year which is little bit above 5 times 250 EUR. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzy?ewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl From millnert at gmail.com Sun Apr 17 03:46:53 2011 From: millnert at gmail.com (Martin Millnert) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 21:46:53 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > ? ?http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 I agree with this proposal. Regards, Martin From millnert at gmail.com Sun Apr 17 04:03:05 2011 From: millnert at gmail.com (Martin Millnert) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 22:03:05 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Message-ID: Richard, On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Richard Hartmann wrote: >> In the same way, whatever resource is being used via RIPE, is a cost to the >> NCC and that needs to be paid somehow. If it does not come from the PI >> crowd, then it will come from the membership. That is the 'bill' that Jim is >> referring to. > > Realistically speaking, there is not much in actual additional costs > other than the time to support requests. That is a quite strong statement. The RIPE NCC has an operational running cost. What the community gets is a database where you can apply for, register and unregister some Internet resources, and in between they keep them there. Today there is a recurring cost based on an averaged load of maintaining resources (NFP/FP makes zero distinction for RIPE NCC here), and a setup fee for LIRs. The recurring resource costs, for simplicity, also cover the application costs of said resources - a cost that with IPv6 has a real chance to go down, if the NCC is sincere in simplifying the processes and aligning them with reality. (I'm clear: the community sets policies and the NCC implements them in their hostmasters.) If your statement was actually true, please do explain the PI / ASN / LIR pricing model of today and where these costs goes, if "there is not much in actual additional costs" of giving out and maintaining PI resources at discounted prices to some. The real truth is that any subsidizing will be just that; subsidizing. I am in favor of the current simple PI / ASN cost model as it is and oppose subsidizing as it will lead to unbalance. Thus, I want any change in pricing to be discussed for the general PI resource, following today's model. Regards, Martin From Marcus.Gerdon at versatel.de Tue Apr 19 09:10:03 2011 From: Marcus.Gerdon at versatel.de (Marcus.Gerdon) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:10:03 +0200 Subject: AW: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) Message-ID: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB80408A6EE@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> Michiel, > Not everything on the internet is a bussiness with needs and > a large bag of > cash. Please also consider the non-profit organisations with > valid reasons > of running their own PI network. I'd be quite interested in hearing/reading your thoughts about the 'valid reasons' you see. I currently can't think of any non-multihoming PI requirement in establishing internet access for enterprises (and non-profits / ngo are alike in the meanwhile) that validate driving additional cost for every network to support their PI without technical need. kind regards, Marcus From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Tue Apr 19 10:19:52 2011 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:19:52 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Message-ID: Prefix: My statement was probably overly broad and, apparently, I didn't flesh it out enough to make my point. On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 04:03, Martin Millnert wrote: > If your statement was actually true, please do explain the PI / ASN / > LIR pricing model of today and where these costs goes, if "there is > not much in actual additional costs" of giving out and maintaining PI > resources at discounted prices to some. What I meant is that maintaining the data once it's in the relevant DBs is effectively free. Yes, there will be costs incurred by extra storage, load on the whois servers etc, but this is all negligible, imo, when compared to the having actual humans interact with other humans. > The real truth is that any subsidizing will be just that; subsidizing. Of course. > I am in favor of the current simple PI / ASN cost model as it is and > oppose subsidizing as it will lead to unbalance. Thus, I want any > change in pricing to be discussed for the general PI resource, > following today's model. I am not saying I want anything changed. I simply stated that I think it might be a worthwhile thing to do. I.e. sharing of opinion, not trying to push in any way. Richard From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Tue Apr 19 14:50:13 2011 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:50:13 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4DAD8505.6050905@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Tim Chown wrote: > On 15 Apr 2011, at 11:28, boggits wrote: > > >>On 15 April 2011 10:22, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> >>>A proposed change to the RIPE Document ripe-512,"IPv6 Address >>>Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. >> >>>You can find the full proposal at: >>> >>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 >> >>Why should a company require PIv6 addressing when the task of >>renumbering within IPv6 space has become so simple? > > > I'm interested: how simple do you think it has become? In particular, when most of the (originally conceived and RFC'd) support functionality in DNS - has been removed in the meantime... Wilfried. > Tim From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Tue Apr 19 15:02:59 2011 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:02:59 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: <001401cbfb5b$7df931b0$79eb9510$@com> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <001401cbfb5b$7df931b0$79eb9510$@com> Message-ID: <4DAD8803.6010100@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Erik Bais wrote: > Hi Michael, > > >>Nonetheless, the important factor for me is: Will it cost the same amount >>of money per year? This is "tragedy of the commons" problem, so as long as >>the cost for holding the PI resource is the same before and after this >>proposal, I don't have any problems with it. > > >>If it's all of a sudden a lot cheaper, I oppose the change. > > > Initially the proposal did include a change in the cost for PI IPv6, however > it was decided to not include that into this discussion as cost for PI isn't > decided within the community but in the AGM meeting. > > Having said this, there will be a public discussion behind this to get input > from the community to review the cost of specifically PI IPv6 as input for > the chairs to take into the AGM meeting. > > It wasn't my intention to ask for cheaper PI IPv6, the opposite in fact, I > personally think that PI IPv6 should be more expensive than currently > especially when the multihoming requirement would be dropped. We should keep in mind that the RIPE NCC, working (+ charging for its services) according to the policies as agreed by the Community is NOT an internet tax and fund-redistribution entity! Usually, the cost for a particular service is set to reflect the effort in the NCC to provide the registration (and associated) services. There is no way to redistribute a "FIB-entry-surcharge" to whatever or whoever believes to "suffer" from this proposed change in policy. > The proposal as it is, is to have the same requirements for PI IPv6 as one > would face if they would signup to become a LIR. Not really. It would only remove special (and imho artificial to begin with) *operational* requirments (i.e. multi-homing, ASing) from the access to the resource. Registering a prefix in the Resource Registry by the RIPE NCC should require the same effort as IPv4 PI and the current IPv6 PI. Actually - it should become cheaper - effortwise - because the NCC can drop the superficial and ineffective "checks" made after assignment, to assess if the MH requirements were or still are met. > Kind regards, > Erik Bais Wilfried. From leo.vegoda at icann.org Tue Apr 19 15:53:51 2011 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 06:53:51 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7E5D5B921A2@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> You wrote: > What I meant is that maintaining the data once it's in the relevant DBs is effectively free. > Yes, there will be costs incurred by extra storage, load on the whois servers etc, but this > is all negligible, imo, when compared to the having actual humans interact with other > humans. I disagree. However well designed, the database system cannot run without some human interaction. People are required to provide technical support, implement new features and do all the regular maintenance you would expect for any operational system. That does not come for free. Regards, Leo Vegoda From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Tue Apr 19 16:40:42 2011 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:40:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7E5D5B921A2@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7E5D5B921A2@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 15:53, Leo Vegoda wrote: > I disagree. However well designed, the database system cannot run without some human interaction. People are required to provide technical support, implement new features and do all the regular maintenance you would expect for any operational system. That does not come for free. It is almost free as a computer will not care in the least if there are a few hundred more or less entries to churn through. The cost comes from maintaining the whole system in the first place. That being said, we are venturing more and more into the mythical lands of off topic so while people are more than welcome to email me privately, I think we should stop this particular sub-thread here. Richard From fweimer at bfk.de Wed Apr 20 15:01:31 2011 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:01:31 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: <4DAD8803.6010100@CC.UniVie.ac.at> (Wilfried Woeber's message of "Tue\, 19 Apr 2011 13\:02\:59 +0000") References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <001401cbfb5b$7df931b0$79eb9510$@com> <4DAD8803.6010100@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <828vv52i1g.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Wilfried Woeber: > We should keep in mind that the RIPE NCC, working (+ charging for > its services) according to the policies as agreed by the Community > is NOT an internet tax and fund-redistribution entity! I agree wholeheartedly. > There is no way to redistribute a "FIB-entry-surcharge" to whatever > or whoever believes to "suffer" from this proposed change in policy. And more fine-grained routing choices often improve some desirable metrics globally, and not just locally at one site. In any case, update churn is reportedly the worse problem today. -- 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 fweimer at bfk.de Wed Apr 20 15:19:52 2011 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:19:52 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the cost of PI space In-Reply-To: <20110416102736.GA25464@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> (Piotr Strzyzewski's message of "Sat\, 16 Apr 2011 12\:27\:37 +0200") References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <4DA82627.5090101@klaver.it> <55B4758B-B0CD-4129-8ED8-35055A562440@rfc1035.com> <20110415122242.GJ16824@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> <00cb01cbfb76$e1b72520$a5256f60$@com> <20110415145545.GA15252@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> <20110416102736.GA25464@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> Message-ID: <824o5t2h6v.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Piotr Strzyzewski: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:55:45PM +0200, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg wrote: >> From our particular point of view, if I assume 250eur not only for IPv6 PI >> but also for IPv4 PI and AS numbers, we would be already above the XS >> membership fee. > > As far as I remember, ASN is independent resource and is not included in > the LIR fee (is extra paid). Still, XS membership fee is 1300 EUR/year > which is little bit above 5 times 250 EUR. And the XS membership fee can possibly apply only to those who have received their IPv4 PA allocation between 2004 and 2008 (and prior to the mid-90s or so). The initial IPv4 allocation is not included in the membership fee. -- 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 ebais at a2b-internet.com Wed Apr 20 15:41:06 2011 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:41:06 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 New Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) In-Reply-To: <20110412151523.228D96A002@postboy.ripe.net> References: <20110412151523.228D96A002@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <007a01cbff60$997f6f40$cc7e4dc0$@com> > You can find the full proposal at: >??? http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08 ??? > and the draft document at: >??? http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08/draft > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 26 April 2011. I read the document and think that it is a start good in its current form. Regards, Erik Bais From emadaio at ripe.net Wed Apr 20 15:36:02 2011 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:36:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Cosmetic Surgery Project: New Draft Document for IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy Message-ID: <4DAEE142.4000407@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, At RIPE 59 in Lisbon in October 2009, the RIPE NCC announced that it would undertake a project to make various RIPE Policy Documents easier to understand without changing the meaning of the text. We have just finished merging the following three policies into one document: -ripe-512 "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" -ripe-451 "IPv6 Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points" -ripe-233 "IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers in the RIPE Region" A draft of the new merged document is online and ready for community review at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/updated-documents/ We encourage you to read this merged version and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net by 18 May 2011. Kind Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From swmike at swm.pp.se Wed Apr 20 17:49:46 2011 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:49:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: <4DAD8803.6010100@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <001401cbfb5b$7df931b0$79eb9510$@com> <4DAD8803.6010100@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > There is no way to redistribute a "FIB-entry-surcharge" to whatever or > whoever believes to "suffer" from this proposed change in policy. As I stated before, I don't care if they get the money in cash from the bank and BURN them at a BBQ, as long as the money is paid so as to stop people using it who don't really have any real business use for it. I don't want the money, I just want there to be *substantial cost* to take up a DFZ slot. Preferrably it should be paid per slot as well, so people de-aggregating their blocks have to pay more, but I don't know any way to do that. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From sergi at ix.net.ua Wed Apr 20 17:58:59 2011 From: sergi at ix.net.ua (Sergi Polischuk) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:58:59 +0300 (EEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] Cosmetic Surgery Project: New Draft Document for IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy In-Reply-To: <4DAEE142.4000407@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20110420155859.6DA1273058@look.ix.net.ua> Hi, Appearance of new "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" is a really great news! Text looks more literary, abolished terms (like NIR) has been removed. Especially important changes is present in paragraph 4.1 were described "right to deregister" instead nonexistent "licensing" term. I'm personally happy to see "The IXP must have a transparent and published policy describing the requirements to join" instead "there must be a clear and open policy". So idea of my 2010-07 proposal has been successfully incorporated. Good job! Thank you. > Dear colleagues, > > At RIPE 59 in Lisbon in October 2009, the RIPE NCC announced that it > would undertake a project to make various RIPE Policy Documents easier > to understand without changing the meaning of the text. > > We have just finished merging the following three policies into one > document: > > -ripe-512 "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" > -ripe-451 "IPv6 Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points" > -ripe-233 "IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers in the RIPE Region" > > A draft of the new merged document is online and ready for community > review at: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/updated-documents/ > > We encourage you to read this merged version and send any comments to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net by 18 May > 2011. > > > Kind Regards, > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > -- _)\_ Sergi Polischuk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From fweimer at bfk.de Thu Apr 21 15:10:06 2011 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:10:06 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: (Mikael Abrahamsson's message of "Wed\, 20 Apr 2011 17\:49\:46 +0200 \(CEST\)") References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <001401cbfb5b$7df931b0$79eb9510$@com> <4DAD8803.6010100@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <82k4enn429.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Mikael Abrahamsson: > I don't want the money, I just want there to be *substantial cost* to > take up a DFZ slot. And degrade overall routing quality because networks cannot afford announcing shorter paths? I don't think this is a good idea. > Preferrably it should be paid per slot as well, so people > de-aggregating their blocks have to pay more, but I don't know any way > to do that. Currently, the policy documents spell out clearly that a prefix assignment is not a guarantuee that the prefix will show up in the DFZ. Neither the RIPE community nor the RIPE NCC control the DFZ, so I'm not sure how to change this, and getting some control seems to be a necessary first step before charging for DFZ slots (that is, make sure that you can actually deliver the product you're trying to sell). -- 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 emadaio at ripe.net Thu Apr 21 15:49:04 2011 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:49:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 May 2011 (Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA) Message-ID: <20110421134905.3228C6A097@postboy.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The Discussion Period for the global policy proposal 2011-01 has been extended, in agreement with the proposer, until 19 May 2011. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-01 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to . Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From swmike at swm.pp.se Thu Apr 21 15:55:23 2011 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:55:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: <82k4enn429.fsf@mid.bfk.de> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <001401cbfb5b$7df931b0$79eb9510$@com> <4DAD8803.6010100@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <82k4enn429.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Mikael Abrahamsson: > >> I don't want the money, I just want there to be *substantial cost* to >> take up a DFZ slot. > > And degrade overall routing quality because networks cannot afford > announcing shorter paths? I don't think this is a good idea. Please elaborate. I don't understand your reasoning. How does de-aggregation improve routing quality? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From fweimer at bfk.de Thu Apr 21 16:09:29 2011 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:09:29 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: (Mikael Abrahamsson's message of "Thu\, 21 Apr 2011 15\:55\:23 +0200 \(CEST\)") References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <001401cbfb5b$7df931b0$79eb9510$@com> <4DAD8803.6010100@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <82k4enn429.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: <82vcy7ae7a.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Mikael Abrahamsson: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Mikael Abrahamsson: >> >>> I don't want the money, I just want there to be *substantial cost* to >>> take up a DFZ slot. >> >> And degrade overall routing quality because networks cannot afford >> announcing shorter paths? I don't think this is a good idea. > > Please elaborate. I don't understand your reasoning. How does > de-aggregation improve routing quality? It can make it possible for your network to choose a better path to the destination, even according to your own set of cost metrics. -- 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 Jasper.Jans at espritxb.nl Thu Apr 21 15:56:48 2011 From: Jasper.Jans at espritxb.nl (Jasper Jans) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:56:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <55557D0EBE9495428BFE94EF8BC5EBD20101D090A074@EXCH01.campus.local> I support this proposal. Jasper -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Emilio Madaio Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 11:23 AM To: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to the RIPE Document ripe-512,"IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 13 May 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer From swmike at swm.pp.se Thu Apr 21 16:18:36 2011 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:18:36 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: <82vcy7ae7a.fsf@mid.bfk.de> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <001401cbfb5b$7df931b0$79eb9510$@com> <4DAD8803.6010100@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <82k4enn429.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <82vcy7ae7a.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Florian Weimer wrote: >> Please elaborate. I don't understand your reasoning. How does >> de-aggregation improve routing quality? > > It can make it possible for your network to choose a better path to > the destination, even according to your own set of cost metrics. That is not elaborating. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From dr at cluenet.de Fri Apr 22 20:59:40 2011 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 20:59:40 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20110422185940.GA14504@srv03.cluenet.de> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:01:46PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > If someone is willing to spend a substantial amount of money per year to > hold a PI, they have a real business need and are willing to back this with > cash because it's still cheaper for them. If they don't, then please stop > using DFZ resources for no real need. So "real need" is defined as "commercial interest, backed by spending money for a database entry"? Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From dr at cluenet.de Fri Apr 22 21:02:31 2011 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 21:02:31 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: <4DAD8803.6010100@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> <001401cbfb5b$7df931b0$79eb9510$@com> <4DAD8803.6010100@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20110422190231.GB14504@srv03.cluenet.de> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 01:02:59PM +0000, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Actually - it should become cheaper - effortwise - because the NCC can drop > the superficial and ineffective "checks" made after assignment, to assess if > the MH requirements were or still are met. And it doesn't have to consider "need" regarding the amount of space requested, if not more than /48. And even if more, the rules are far simpler than with IPv4 where each and every address has to be justified. So in fact, the cost for NCC to process+maintain IPv6 PI should be (significantly?) less than with IPv4 PI. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From dr at cluenet.de Fri Apr 22 21:09:37 2011 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 21:09:37 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) In-Reply-To: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> References: <20110415092235.748716A0A7@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20110422190937.GC14504@srv03.cluenet.de> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:22:35AM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 Although this proposal questionably focusses only on businesses in the rationale, I fully support this proposal. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From rv at nic.dtag.de Mon Apr 25 23:26:02 2011 From: rv at nic.dtag.de (Ruediger Volk, Deutsche Telekom T-Com - TE141-P1) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:26:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 New Draft Document Published (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:15:22 +0200." <20110412151523.228D96A002@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <1339.1303766762@x37.NIC.DTAG.DE> Dear colleagues, > Dear Colleagues, > > Following the feedback received, the draft document for the proposal > described in 2008-08 was edited and published. > > The new impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also > been published. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08 > > and the draft document at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 26 April 2011. I agree to passing this policy in this (or the previous version 3.0 of 2011-02-09) form. My objection to excluding IPv6 has been taken care of (while I note that the undated NCC certification FAQ anyway tells "... certify their PA address allocations. This includes both IPv4 and IPv6 ...", and ripe-513 dated 2011-02-07 even in the title did know about PA space in IPv6 context). (my mail of Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:40 +0100) I'm not aware what concern or argument has been raised in order to include IPv4 "ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED"; this inclusion seems to be opposite direction to quickly covering the most simple cases. I'd not be surprised if later on some complications with this hit. I'm NOT seeing this as a show stopper. Beyond these changes my arguments and concerns from the last revision (my mail from Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:40 +0100) essentially still apply - but I did NOT raise them as show stoppers then, and still regard them again as challenges for making required further progress. Looking forward to discuss required and planned activities at RIPE62. It is not easy to track what actually has changed, and a summary of changes actually would seem helpfull for discussing revised proposals; in particular I'm not sure about the 4 related documents. The only one I somewhat accidentally know that it has not changed is the CPS (that's still the one dated 2010-12-30 which is clearly different from the previous draft of 2010-11-01). Is ripe-517 (dated 2011-03-07) the same as the previously referenced draft? What about the two (undated!) terms and conditions documents? Regards, Ruediger Ruediger Volk Deutsche Telekom AG -- Internet Backbone Engineering E-Mail: rv at NIC.DTAG.DE From sander at steffann.nl Tue Apr 26 13:46:01 2011 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:46:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call Message-ID: Hello working group, The review period for the new RIPE Document described in proposal 2008-08 has ended. During the review phase we have seen on the mailing list: - one positive comment (Bais) - one comment to go forward in the PDP with some extra comments intended for the future evolution of a more comprehensive certification policy (Volk) Based on this feedback we (the address policy working group chairs) have decided to move this policy proposal to the Concluding Phase and start the Last Call for Comments. The documents on the website will be updated to reflect this and an official announcement will be sent out once this is done. Thank you all for your contributions, Sander Steffann RIPE Address Policy WG co-chair From pfs at cisco.com Tue Apr 26 14:05:25 2011 From: pfs at cisco.com (Philip Smith) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:05:25 +1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 May 2011 (Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA) In-Reply-To: <20110421134905.3228C6A097@postboy.ripe.net> References: <20110421134905.3228C6A097@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4DB6B505.9050600@cisco.com> Hi everyone, Further to Emilio's e-mail (thanks Emilio), in order to encourage some more discussion about the policy proposal itself, I would like to give a little insight about the intentions of the proposal. The proposal is based on two main principles: 1) Repetition: at the beginning of the year IANA distributed the last five /8s available in one single go to each RIR. This was done according to the "Global Policy for Remaining IPv4 Address Space" (ripe-634 in the RIPE NCC service region). All the RIR communities agreed in the past to have this type of distribution, equally partitioned, in a specific special circumstance. (That special circumstance being the last IPv4 /8s available in the IANA pool.) We now have another special circumstance. The IANA pool has less than a /8 remaining, and in the foreseeable future the amount of address space in the pool will not be an exact known quantity as in the past. We know there will be small amounts returned, and that it will be fragmented. If it made sense for ripe-634, it makes sense now just to repeat something that worked. And a distribution that would happen only twice a year. 2) Simplicity: the total IANA pool divided by the number of the RIRs. A simple solution to handle a situation that nobody can efficiently predict. Everyone receives the same, no differences between RIRs. On behalf of my co-authors, I hope we can have more discussion about the proposal itself in the next three weeks. Best wishes, philip -- From emadaio at ripe.net Tue Apr 26 16:00:48 2011 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:00:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 Last Call for Comments (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) Message-ID: <20110426140048.707516A01A@postboy.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2008-08 is now at its Concluding Phase, as per decision of the Address Policy WG Chairs. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 24 May 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From ebais at a2b-internet.com Tue Apr 26 16:21:48 2011 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:21:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size) In-Reply-To: <4D47F4A7.3020500@inex.ie> References: <20101021113639.C265D6A008@postboy.ripe.net> <001d01cbc201$3f3c8dc0$bdb5a940$@com> <4D47F4A7.3020500@inex.ie> Message-ID: <006001cc041d$47e42b00$d7ac8100$@com> Hi Nick, > On 01/02/2011 11:14, Erik Bais wrote: >> I was wondering what the status is of this policy. > Hi Eric, > It's blocking on me to re-formulate and send back to the working group. > Unfortunately, I'm just tied up with other stuff at the moment.? I'm hoping > to get time to deal with this soon. > Nick I noticed that the policy is scheduled on the agenda for the next RIPE meeting, but I didn't see anything change in status yet. Did anything change to its currently published form and how it is on the RIPE website published ? If not, it is possible to get this phase concluded asap for the following reasons : 1) We are about to shift the period of assignment for PI from 6 months to 3 months. And by not having something like this in place, we'll end up with PI space that is un-routable, as everyone (or at least a large portion of ISP's) is filtering everything smaller than a /24. 2) For LIR's, being able to do a PI request, without having to make up the story upto the next /24, will make things a lot easier. 3) For the IPRA's, reduction in workload as they don't have to shift through all the made up stories on PI requests and actual legitimate PI requests. As some might say that this policy is out-dated due to the nearby IPv4 depletion, it would be my statement that this is the moment why you would want this and want this ASAP for the above mentioned reasons. In short, can we move ahead with this and yes I do support this. :) > You can find the full proposal at: > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html > and the draft document at: > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-492-draft2006-05.html Regards, Erik Bais From marcin at leon.pl Tue Apr 26 23:40:48 2011 From: marcin at leon.pl (Marcin Kuczera) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:40:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size) In-Reply-To: <006001cc041d$47e42b00$d7ac8100$@com> References: <20101021113639.C265D6A008@postboy.ripe.net> <001d01cbc201$3f3c8dc0$bdb5a940$@com> <4D47F4A7.3020500@inex.ie> <006001cc041d$47e42b00$d7ac8100$@com> Message-ID: <4DB73BE0.10506@leon.pl> Erik Bais wrote: > Hi Nick, > >> On 01/02/2011 11:14, Erik Bais wrote: >>> I was wondering what the status is of this policy. > >> Hi Eric, > >> It's blocking on me to re-formulate and send back to the working group. >> Unfortunately, I'm just tied up with other stuff at the moment. I'm > hoping >> to get time to deal with this soon. > >> Nick > > I noticed that the policy is scheduled on the agenda for the next RIPE > meeting, but I didn't see anything change in status yet. > > Did anything change to its currently published form and how it is on the > RIPE website published ? > > If not, it is possible to get this phase concluded asap for the following > reasons : > > 1) We are about to shift the period of assignment for PI from 6 months to 3 > months. And by not having something like this in place, we'll end up with PI > space that is un-routable, as everyone (or at least a large portion of > ISP's) is filtering everything smaller than a /24. > 2) For LIR's, being able to do a PI request, without having to make up the > story upto the next /24, will make things a lot easier. > 3) For the IPRA's, reduction in workload as they don't have to shift through > all the made up stories on PI requests and actual legitimate PI requests. > > As some might say that this policy is out-dated due to the nearby IPv4 > depletion, it would be my statement that this is the moment why you would > want this and want this ASAP for the above mentioned reasons. > > In short, can we move ahead with this and yes I do support this. :) Hello, I'am new here, from land of massive PI requests ;) We are LIR providing SponsorLIR service for little ISPs in Poland. Providing /24 as the smallest entity is a good idea in my opinion, however because little ISPs "wake up" recently willing to replace their i.e. /22 PA to PI (to be multihomed and independent) I hope that getting more than /24 will still be possible - of course if still available in RIR resources. Regards, Marcin >> You can find the full proposal at: > >> http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html > >> and the draft document at: > >> http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-492-draft2006-05.html > > Regards, > Erik Bais > > From marcin at leon.pl Tue Apr 26 23:51:02 2011 From: marcin at leon.pl (Marcin Kuczera) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:51:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR Message-ID: <4DB73E46.1000605@leon.pl> hello, Is it possible to discuss ability of getting second IPv6 PA allocation as a LIR without filling first one ? The reason for such a need is a change of IPv6 PI rules, it is no longer possible to use IPv6 PI as ISP (/128 for subscibers). So, solution is that LIR segment /32 into smaller units an assigning them to their SponsorLIR agreement customers. However, first /32 IPv6 allocation is in our case advertized as whole by our AS13000. Once some internal policy for suballocations is used, this prefix can not be divided into smaller prefixes. For SponsorLIR agreement customers - little ISPs, willing to advertise their i.e. /48 from our /32 without any overlapping prefixes, second /32 IPv6 PA (not advertised as whole by LIRs ASes) would be great... Regards, Marcin From millnert at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 05:10:15 2011 From: millnert at gmail.com (Martin Millnert) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:10:15 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR In-Reply-To: <4DB73E46.1000605@leon.pl> References: <4DB73E46.1000605@leon.pl> Message-ID: Marcin, On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Marcin Kuczera wrote: > hello, > > Is it possible to discuss ability of getting second IPv6 PA allocation as a > LIR without filling first one ? See below. > The reason for such a need is a change of IPv6 PI rules, it is no longer > possible to use IPv6 PI as ISP (/128 for subscibers). > So, solution is that LIR segment /32 into smaller units an assigning them to > their SponsorLIR agreement customers. > > However, first /32 IPv6 allocation is in our case advertized as whole by our > AS13000. Once some internal policy for suballocations is used, this prefix > can not be divided into smaller prefixes. I doubt this is correct. You mentioned that you had not filled the /32. In other words, there should be /48s left over unallocated internally. These /48s can be (sub-)allocated to customers (please forgive my flawed internet-numbers-delegation-vocabulary), who are free to announce them over BGP sessions. It is then up to your customers to find transit providers willing to accept these announcements, which may be helped by them having route6 objects registered. If they have trouble with connectivity due to AS:es filtering out these long prefixes from IPv6 PA regions, they will have to get their own PA by becoming a LIR member themselves. > For SponsorLIR agreement customers - little ISPs, willing to advertise their > i.e. /48 from our /32 without any overlapping prefixes, second /32 IPv6 PA > (not advertised as whole by LIRs ASes) would be great... The yet-to-be properly challenged (legacy?) consensus/opinion of this WG is that ISPs must pay to play IPv6. I.e., you must become LIR to be allowed to announce routes into the DFZ. IPv6 PI (PIv6) is nearly useless, by design: Only customer-less end-users can use PIv6 space today without stepping into a grey zone in the policy documents. I.e., these end-users can't have customers. So, essentially, PIv6 is usable by either normal private persons, or businesses who do not use their PIv6 space for any business purposes (none, I think). Presumably, the more ISPs that sign up for this Internet tax (the LIR membership fees), the lower it will become (#LIRs is most definitely sub-linearly proportional to the RIPE NCC:s operational costs). It is fairly obvious to me that this attempt to (at least partially) solve a *perceived* network model problem with taxes is not long-term stable in itself.* If you think what I've described above sounds strange, read up on the AP-WG list archives. This and related topics have been discussed in the following threads at considerable lengths this year alone: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2011/msg00205.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2011/msg00164.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2011/msg00069.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2011/msg00039.html Personally I'd much prefer if the policies were aligned with reality better, since it would allow us to get rid of the more or less arbitrary policy-interpreting role the IPRA:s at the RIPE NCC has for v6 resources today. This would make the landscape much more honest and just. After all, it's just bits anyway. Regards, Martin * This is *the* major source for all this head ache. There is a considerable fear among many AP-WG participants that making IPv6 PI easier to get will (1) lead to an uncontrolled explosion of IPv6 prefixes in the DFZ (2), which hardware will fail to handle (3) and the IPv6(**) internet will break down (4). As you can see, (1, 2, 3, 4) are several issues that all deserve to be further researched IMO. ** And possibly IPv4 too, if both networks are physically over-layered on the same network gear. Continued expansion of prefixes is going to occur both in IPv4 and in IPv6 until there are no more "buyers". The biggest difference between these prefixes coming from unallocated space (IPv6) or from existing allocated space seeing its "usage-density" increased (IPv4) is that IPv6 is cheaper. At some point, it is going to be cheaper to become a IPv6 LIR than get even a small IPv4 block, and the problem remains just as unsolved then as it is now. From gert at space.net Wed Apr 27 08:36:00 2011 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:36:00 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR In-Reply-To: References: <4DB73E46.1000605@leon.pl> Message-ID: <20110427063600.GL30227@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:10:15PM -0400, Martin Millnert wrote: > Personally I'd much prefer if the policies were aligned with reality > better, since it would allow us to get rid of the more or less > arbitrary policy-interpreting role the IPRA:s at the RIPE NCC has for > v6 resources today. This would make the landscape much more honest and > just. After all, it's just bits anyway. It's on our agenda for next week's APWG meeting, in the Thursday 11:00-12:30 time slot. (And towards Marcin: if these policies stop you from assigning /128 to end customers, that was partly the intention. Customers are supposed to receive at least a /64, or better a /56 or /48 - which is why LIRs can get a huge block of addresses quite easily. Don't return into IPv4 "single-address-plus-NAT" land!) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? 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 richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 18:06:49 2011 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:06:49 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR In-Reply-To: <20110427063600.GL30227@Space.Net> References: <4DB73E46.1000605@leon.pl> <20110427063600.GL30227@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 08:36, Gert Doering wrote: > (And towards Marcin: if these policies stop you from assigning /128 to > end customers, that was partly the intention. ?Customers are supposed to > receive at least a /64, or better a /56 or /48 - which is why LIRs can get > a huge block of addresses quite easily. ?Don't return into IPv4 > "single-address-plus-NAT" land!) This point can not be emphasized enough... _Please_ do no assign longer than a /64 to any customer, for any reason. And yes, I am talking about transfer prefixes, as well. Richard