From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Mon Apr 2 12:27:10 2012 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Lindqvist Kurt Erik) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 12:27:10 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> Message-ID: <1DF1E8B5-9846-414B-88D3-709F3332FBD2@kurtis.pp.se> Gert, the Euro-IX Board discussed this yesterday and we as an organisation strongly support this proposal! Best regards, - kurtis - On 29 mar 2012, at 13:21, Gert Doering wrote: > Dear Address-Policy WG, > (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") > > after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you > have been VERY quiet in this review phase. > > Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough > for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments > really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. > > Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what > you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose > it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just > specific aspects of the proposal as written now. > > thanks, > > Gert Doering, > APWG chair > > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs >> with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback >> received on the mailing list. We have published the new version >> (version 3.0) today. >> >> Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are: >> >> -a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed >> section 5.6.2 >> >> >> As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", >> the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new >> Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the >> RIPE Policy Development Process. >> >> The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact >> analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published >> >> >> You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 >> >> and the draft document at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft >> >> >> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >> to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 3 April 2011. >> >> Regards >> >> Emilio Madaio >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >> > > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled 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 > Best regards, - kurtis - -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From turchanyi.geza at gmail.com Mon Apr 2 12:40:10 2012 From: turchanyi.geza at gmail.com (Turchanyi Geza) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 12:40:10 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <1DF1E8B5-9846-414B-88D3-709F3332FBD2@kurtis.pp.se> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> <1DF1E8B5-9846-414B-88D3-709F3332FBD2@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Lindqvist Kurt Erik wrote: > > > Gert, > > the Euro-IX Board discussed this yesterday and we as an organisation > strongly support this proposal! > > Best regards, > > - kurtis - > Good to hear that the working group affected is supporting the proposal. Perhaps this is the most important. Best, G?za -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ck at akamai.com Mon Apr 2 13:11:07 2012 From: ck at akamai.com (Christian Kaufmann) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 13:11:07 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [eix-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> Message-ID: I support this proposal, as new IXs and the extension of existing ones are vital for the future of the internet. Christian Kaufmann Akamai Technologies On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Dear Address-Policy WG, > (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") > > after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you > have been VERY quiet in this review phase. > > Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough > for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments > really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. > > Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what > you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose > it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just > specific aspects of the proposal as written now. > > thanks, > > Gert Doering, > APWG chair > > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs >> with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback >> received on the mailing list. We have published the new version >> (version 3.0) today. >> >> Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are: >> >> -a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed >> section 5.6.2 >> >> >> As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", >> the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new >> Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the >> RIPE Policy Development Process. >> >> The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact >> analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published >> >> >> You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 >> >> and the draft document at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft >> >> >> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >> to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 3 April 2011. >> >> Regards >> >> Emilio Madaio >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >> > > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled 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 lists-ripe at c4inet.net Mon Apr 2 13:13:03 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 12:13:03 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> <1DF1E8B5-9846-414B-88D3-709F3332FBD2@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <20120402111303.GA72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:40:10PM +0200, Turchanyi Geza wrote: >Good to hear that the working group affected is supporting the proposal. >Perhaps this is the most important. What is the current status of organisations wrt the PDP? I remember a shitstorm about that in a different context (2007-01?). IIRC the outcome was that organisations don't get a say except through their individual members? rgds, Sascha Luck From alex at leefmann.com Mon Apr 2 13:20:00 2012 From: alex at leefmann.com (Alexander Leefmann) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 13:20:00 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [eix-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> Message-ID: Dear working group, it looks like my mail from last week did not arrived on this list. I strongly support this proposal becoming a policy. Best regards -- Alex On Apr 2, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Christian Kaufmann wrote: > I support this proposal, as new IXs and the extension of existing ones are vital > for the future of the internet. > > Christian Kaufmann > Akamai Technologies > > > On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > >> Dear Address-Policy WG, >> (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") >> >> after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you >> have been VERY quiet in this review phase. >> >> Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough >> for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments >> really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. >> >> Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what >> you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose >> it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just >> specific aspects of the proposal as written now. >> >> thanks, >> >> Gert Doering, >> APWG chair >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: >>> >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs >>> with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback >>> received on the mailing list. We have published the new version >>> (version 3.0) today. >>> >>> Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are: >>> >>> -a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed >>> section 5.6.2 >>> >>> >>> As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", >>> the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new >>> Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the >>> RIPE Policy Development Process. >>> >>> The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact >>> analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published >>> >>> >>> You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: >>> >>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 >>> >>> and the draft document at: >>> >>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft >>> >>> >>> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >>> to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 3 April 2011. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Emilio Madaio >>> Policy Development Officer >>> RIPE NCC >>> >>> >> >> >> Gert Doering >> -- NetMaster >> -- >> have you enabled 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 chrish at consol.net Mon Apr 2 13:38:11 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (chrish at consol.net) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 13:38:11 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <20120402111303.GA72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> <1DF1E8B5-9846-414B-88D3-709F3332FBD2@kurtis.pp.se> <20120402111303.GA72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <4F798FA3.1070207@consol.net> hi! On 04/02/2012 01:13 PM, Sascha Luck wrote: > On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:40:10PM +0200, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > >> Good to hear that the working group affected is supporting the proposal. >> Perhaps this is the most important. > > What is the current status of organisations wrt the PDP? I remember a shitstorm about that in a different context (2007-01?). > IIRC the outcome was that organisations don't get a say except through > their individual members? ripe represents the community - the plenum being the sum of the individual persons. identifying a commercial IXP syndication as 'the most important' player regarding the question whether IXPs should be treated special regarding commons of the community is in my eyes - errr - "amazing" :) regards, Chris From boggits at gmail.com Mon Apr 2 13:25:00 2012 From: boggits at gmail.com (boggits) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 12:25:00 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <1DF1E8B5-9846-414B-88D3-709F3332FBD2@kurtis.pp.se> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> <1DF1E8B5-9846-414B-88D3-709F3332FBD2@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: On Apr 2, 2012 11:36 AM, "Lindqvist Kurt Erik" > the Euro-IX Board discussed this >yesterday and we as an >organisation strongly support >this proposal! Perhaps getting the individual members to post their support on the list would speed the process J > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kjetil.olsen at usit.uio.no Mon Apr 2 13:18:31 2012 From: kjetil.olsen at usit.uio.no (Kjetil Otter Olsen) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 13:18:31 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [eix-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4F798B07.4040108@usit.uio.no> We (Norwegian Internet eXchange, NIX) support this proposal! --Kjetil Otter Olsen, USIT/UiO and NIX Den 29.03.2012 13:21, skrev Gert Doering: > Dear Address-Policy WG, > (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") > > after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you > have been VERY quiet in this review phase. > > Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough > for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments > really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. > > Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what > you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose > it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just > specific aspects of the proposal as written now. > > thanks, > > Gert Doering, > APWG chair > > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs >> with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback >> received on the mailing list. We have published the new version >> (version 3.0) today. >> >> Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are: >> >> -a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed >> section 5.6.2 >> >> >> As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", >> the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new >> Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the >> RIPE Policy Development Process. >> >> The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact >> analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published >> >> >> You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 >> >> and the draft document at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft >> >> >> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >> to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 3 April 2011. >> >> Regards >> >> Emilio Madaio >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >> > > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster From gert at space.net Mon Apr 2 14:19:45 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:19:45 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <20120402111303.GA72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> <1DF1E8B5-9846-414B-88D3-709F3332FBD2@kurtis.pp.se> <20120402111303.GA72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20120402121945.GJ84425@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:13:03PM +0100, Sascha Luck wrote: > On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:40:10PM +0200, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > > >Good to hear that the working group affected is supporting the proposal. > >Perhaps this is the most important. > > What is the current status of organisations wrt the PDP? I remember a > shitstorm about that in a different context (2007-01?). > IIRC the outcome was that organisations don't get a say except through > their individual members? Technically, only individials speak up regarding policy developments. Nevertheless, for policy proposals involving other RIPE working groups (be it DNS for "addresses for anycasting" or EIX for this one), it's certainly welcome if the underlying questions are discussed in the respective working group as well, and members from there come here to state their opinion based on that discussion - especially given that these other working groups might have a better understanding of the technical issues involved. I think for IXPs, we can do quite well :-) - but for DNS related proposals, we had a few statements here where it was helpful to be able to draw on the wisdom of the DNS WG... Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled 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 pj at nix.cz Mon Apr 2 14:44:53 2012 From: pj at nix.cz (Petr Jiran) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:44:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [eix-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4F799F45.4050208@nix.cz> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, NIX.CZ supports this proposal. Best regards __________________________________ NIX.CZ z.s.p.o. Petr Jiran - Technical Manager Vinohradska 184, 130 52 Praha Czech Republic e-m at il: pj at nix.cz tel: +420246083470 dw: +420246083471 http://www.nix.cz Dne 29.3.2012 13:21, Gert Doering napsal(a): > Dear Address-Policy WG, > (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") > > after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you > have been VERY quiet in this review phase. > > Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough > for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments > really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. > > Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what > you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose > it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just > specific aspects of the proposal as written now. > > thanks, > > Gert Doering, > APWG chair > > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs >> with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback >> received on the mailing list. We have published the new version >> (version 3.0) today. >> >> Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are: >> >> -a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed >> section 5.6.2 >> >> >> As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", >> the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new >> Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the >> RIPE Policy Development Process. >> >> The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact >> analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published >> >> >> You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 >> >> and the draft document at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft >> >> >> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >> to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 3 April 2011. >> >> Regards >> >> Emilio Madaio >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >> > > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk95n0UACgkQdUnwxWgiigfH3ACeLDzSAblLn+xxTDDIHB7YZRq3 6bkAnAuV99f32iXmRZXrLD/UWPIwpZW5 =VRFZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mschmidt at ripe.net Mon Apr 2 15:39:04 2012 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:39:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 30 April 2012. Regards Marco Schmidt on behalf of the Policy Development Office RIPE NCC From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Apr 2 16:03:12 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:03:12 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) In-Reply-To: <4f79ad4e.48cc0e0a.10ff.317eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <4f79ad4e.48cc0e0a.10ff.317eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi all, In general, I'm not sure what a transfer policy will accomplish that can't already be done by an EU org becoming an ARIN (for example member). Lots of orgs in the EU are already members of other RIRs. Obviously, it will enable the authors company to do more business, but I'm not sure that is a compelling reason to adopt this policy proposal. In general, I am opposed to the notion of monetising IP address blocks, a la domain names. For the moment, i think I would not be in support of this proposal. I am willing to be persuaded however. I'm not too happy with the word "sold" or the 15 months limit. If this gets support, I would rather the word "transfer" be used and the limitation on transfer be more like 36 months. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On 4/2/12, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 30 April 2012. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > on behalf of the Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > > > From boggits at gmail.com Mon Apr 2 16:04:30 2012 From: boggits at gmail.com (boggits) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 15:04:30 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) In-Reply-To: <1333374291_114977@mail.webtapestry.net> References: <1333374291_114977@mail.webtapestry.net> Message-ID: On 2 April 2012 14:39, Marco Schmidt wrote: > ? ?http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ 1. Document does not make it clear about what happens if an LIR changes its policy in regards to reciprocity (i.e. does the policy stop at that instant, are existing transfers completed, are any transfers reversed, etc) 2. IP addresses can't be 'sold' (if they can I'd like to buy some) surely this should be transfered. Why a 15 month window? 3. There appears to be no clear definition of what an acceptable reverse policy should be 4. The policy doesn't make clear who the end point of the transaction are, two LIRs, two endusers (one of each) I'll read it again and I'm sure there will be more questions J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476 From nick at inex.ie Mon Apr 2 16:51:12 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:51:12 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20120402134450.7CF2128421@prometheus.inex.ie> References: <20120402134450.7CF2128421@prometheus.inex.ie> Message-ID: <4F79BCE0.70705@inex.ie> On 02/04/2012 15:39, Marco Schmidt wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ This proposal contains the following statement: > Hence there is a significant over-supply of IPv4 in North America versus > the rest of the world. In a global economy, membership in any particular > RIR should not be a barrier to acquiring IPv4 Addresses when the source > is not within the same RIR region. I'm not going to argue about the amount of address space allocated within continental north america, but just point out that a policy of this form will apply equally for exchanging address space in+out of the afrinic region - which has the least well developed internet infrastructure, the greatest deficit of ip addresses and the longest expected exhaustion time. If it happens that the net movement of IP address is out of the afrinic area and towards the rest of the world, then the infrastructural deficit in Africa will be even more disadvantaged than it currently is. Nick From chrish at consol.net Mon Apr 2 16:59:55 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (Chris) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:59:55 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) In-Reply-To: References: <4f79ad4e.48cc0e0a.10ff.317eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4F79BEEB.5000208@consol.net> hi! > proposal. In general, I am opposed to the notion of monetising IP > address blocks, a la domain names. For the moment, i think I would actually this audaciously breaches policy. if ips are not required anymore, their assignment expires. if an allocation is not needed by a lir anymore, it must be returned to the rir. i'd suggest to take action to recover such ip space. to address ipv4 depletion itself, i'd suggest to reevaluate (early) allocations on compliance with current policy, favourably in steps according to the current 'state of depletion' from rir allocations from /0 (ok we might skip that and i hope maybe even the next few ;) onwards. imho this should be done concertedly at the nro level. that's actually a HUGE space we're talking about here... regards, Chris From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Mon Apr 2 17:15:30 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 16:15:30 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) In-Reply-To: <4F79BEEB.5000208@consol.net> References: <4f79ad4e.48cc0e0a.10ff.317eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <4F79BEEB.5000208@consol.net> Message-ID: <20120402151530.GB72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 04:59:55PM +0200, Chris wrote: >actually this audaciously breaches policy. Nope, not necessarily. >if ips are not required anymore, their assignment expires. if an >allocation is not needed by a lir anymore, it must be returned to >the rir. assignment != allocation Forcing a LIR to return unused /24s out of their allocation would force the LIR to de-aggregate the rest of that allocation (presumably into /24s). Of course, so does this proposal... rgds, s. From jfleury at franceix.net Mon Apr 2 18:08:14 2012 From: jfleury at franceix.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=E9r=F4me_Fleury?=) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 18:08:14 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [eix-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi Gert, FranceIX supports this policy. Regards. On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 13:21, Gert Doering wrote: > Dear Address-Policy WG, > ?(cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") > > after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you > have been VERY quiet in this review phase. > > Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough > for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments > really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. > > Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what > you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. ?If you oppose > it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just > specific aspects of the proposal as written now. > > thanks, > > Gert Doering, > ? ? ? ?APWG chair > > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs >> with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback >> received on the mailing list. ?We have published the new version >> (version 3.0) today. >> >> Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are: >> >> -a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed >> ?section 5.6.2 >> >> >> As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", >> the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new >> Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the >> RIPE Policy Development Process. >> >> The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact >> analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published >> >> >> You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: >> >> ? ? http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 >> >> and the draft document at: >> >> ? ? http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft >> >> >> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >> to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 3 April 2011. >> >> Regards >> >> Emilio Madaio >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >> > > > Gert Doering > ? ? ? ?-- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled 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 jan.torreele at bnix.net Mon Apr 2 18:27:02 2012 From: jan.torreele at bnix.net (Jan Torreele) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 18:27:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi, BNIX (the Belgian National Internet eXchange) supports this proposal. Jan. 2012/3/29 Gert Doering : > Dear Address-Policy WG, > ?(cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") > > after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you > have been VERY quiet in this review phase. > > Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough > for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments > really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. > > Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what > you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. ?If you oppose > it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just > specific aspects of the proposal as written now. > > thanks, > > Gert Doering, > ? ? ? ?APWG chair > > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs >> with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback >> received on the mailing list. ?We have published the new version >> (version 3.0) today. >> >> Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are: >> >> -a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed >> ?section 5.6.2 >> >> >> As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", >> the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new >> Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the >> RIPE Policy Development Process. >> >> The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact >> analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published >> >> >> You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: >> >> ? ? http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 >> >> and the draft document at: >> >> ? ? http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft >> >> >> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >> to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 3 April 2011. >> >> Regards >> >> Emilio Madaio >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >> > > > Gert Doering > ? ? ? ?-- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled 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 slz at baycix.de Mon Apr 2 19:45:05 2012 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 19:45:05 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20120402134333.4D1932A0014@mx00.baycix.de> References: <20120402134333.4D1932A0014@mx00.baycix.de> Message-ID: Hi all, > > Dear Colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 30 April 2012. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > on behalf of the Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > > i'm not really convinced right now about the proposal text (i do support the general idea though). My main concern is : "1. The IPv4 addresses will be used for business purposes and will not be sold within 15 months." Why on earth should only "business purposes" be a valid reason for acquiring legacy IP space by that policy? I don't like that wording. Why aren't NCOs or similar considered here? I come from a time where there wasn't any business on the internet, and i still like to think about all those non-commercial organizations out there (someone has to?). I guess, that's just a wording problem though no one really thought about it - or is this really intentionally? Or did i just get something wrong here? => I don't support the proposal with the CURRENT wording (or someone explain it to me) -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect From john at linx.net Tue Apr 3 08:59:26 2012 From: john at linx.net (John Souter) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 07:59:26 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [eix-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4F7A9FCE.1070208@linx.net> On 29/03/12 12:21, Gert Doering wrote: > Dear Address-Policy WG, > (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") > > after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you > have been VERY quiet in this review phase. > > Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough > for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments > really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. > > Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what > you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose > it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just > specific aspects of the proposal as written now. Gert LINX supports this policy. Regards John -- John Souter, CEO, London Internet Exchange Ltd Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA. Registered 3137929 in England. Mobile: +44-7711-492389 https://www.linx.net/ "Working for the Internet" sip:john at linx.net From s.biernacki at plix.pl Tue Apr 3 10:23:14 2012 From: s.biernacki at plix.pl (Sylwester Biernacki) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 08:23:14 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [eix-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <4F7A9FCE.1070208@linx.net> References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> <4F7A9FCE.1070208@linx.net> Message-ID: <89D2A331-8FF5-43E4-9D16-BC1930BE6CBE@plix.pl> > On 29/03/12 12:21, Gert Doering wrote: >> Dear Address-Policy WG, >> (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") >> >> after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you >> have been VERY quiet in this review phase. >> >> Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough >> for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments >> really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. >> >> Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what >> you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose >> it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just >> specific aspects of the proposal as written now. > Gert, PLIX supports this policy as well. regards, -- Sylwester Biernacki, CEO mail: s.biernacki at plix.pl mobile: +48 609 602 526 web: http://www.plix.pl/ PLIX Ltd., Aleje Jerozolimskie 65/79 00-697 Warsaw NIP/VAT-ID: PL7010109699 From chrish at consol.net Tue Apr 3 11:42:31 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (Chris) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:42:31 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20120402151530.GB72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <4f79ad4e.48cc0e0a.10ff.317eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <4F79BEEB.5000208@consol.net> <20120402151530.GB72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <4F7AC607.1080705@consol.net> hi! On 04/02/2012 05:15 PM, Sascha Luck wrote: > assignment != allocation right. also, policy clearly states its purpose to ensure 'consistent and fair' allocation 'to meet the needs', and that allocation is tied to usage/assignments. with respect to the nature of ripe this is intrinsic, so i'd find it a bit surprising if that might not be understood or overlooked - if it's really perceived as a problem, it might be the right thing to elaborate on this some more in the policy text. it's ofc relatively uncommon that the need for ip space of a lir actually significantly decreases over time, the opposite being the natural development. nevertheless this - reclaiming of allocated space not needed anymore - happens and is regularly pursued by the ncc. regards, Chris From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Tue Apr 3 11:56:48 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 10:56:48 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) In-Reply-To: <4F7AC607.1080705@consol.net> References: <4f79ad4e.48cc0e0a.10ff.317eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <4F79BEEB.5000208@consol.net> <20120402151530.GB72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4F7AC607.1080705@consol.net> Message-ID: <20120403095648.GC72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 11:42:31AM +0200, Chris wrote: >also, policy clearly states its purpose to ensure >'consistent and fair' allocation 'to meet the needs', >and that allocation is tied to usage/assignments. sure, but a minimum allocation may be larger than the sum of the assignments - that doesn't mean the NCC can reclaim part of that allocation - or can it? Of course if a policy were to pass that would enable this sort of fragmenting of allocations and the resulting de-aggregation via prefix trading, one might as well make a policy that required the return of unused allocation parts. rgds, Sascha Luck From chrish at consol.net Tue Apr 3 12:16:10 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (Chris) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:16:10 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20120403095648.GC72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <4f79ad4e.48cc0e0a.10ff.317eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <4F79BEEB.5000208@consol.net> <20120402151530.GB72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4F7AC607.1080705@consol.net> <20120403095648.GC72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <4F7ACDEA.5080008@consol.net> On 04/03/2012 11:56 AM, Sascha Luck wrote: > sure, but a minimum allocation may be larger than the sum of the assignments - that doesn't mean the NCC can we seem to have diverging understandings of 'minimum' here... > reclaim part of that allocation - or can it? i'd say this is one of the many cases i can imagine/construct where that wouldn't make much sense... (and i'm personally more interested in relevant cases, forgive me if i won't spend much more effort on this - if you want you could e.g. also think about increasing the minimum prefixlength for bgp for this purpose) > one might as well make a policy that required the return of unused allocation parts. that's the current situation, and it's being done by ncc (surprisingly where it makes sense ;). regards, Chris From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Tue Apr 3 12:40:10 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:40:10 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) In-Reply-To: <4F7ACDEA.5080008@consol.net> References: <4f79ad4e.48cc0e0a.10ff.317eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <4F79BEEB.5000208@consol.net> <20120402151530.GB72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4F7AC607.1080705@consol.net> <20120403095648.GC72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4F7ACDEA.5080008@consol.net> Message-ID: <20120403104010.GD72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 12:16:10PM +0200, Chris wrote: >On 04/03/2012 11:56 AM, Sascha Luck wrote: >we seem to have diverging understandings of 'minimum' here... there is nothing to understand. The minimum allocation to a LIR is set by policy and was /21. Allocations out of the last /8 are /22. (RIPE NCC service region, I don't know what other RIRs do) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-530 I would assume that many (particularly smaller) LIRs are not using all the allocated space. >that's the current situation, and it's being done by ncc >(surprisingly where it makes sense ;). I am not aware of the NCC reclaiming unused parts of any allocation. The policy allows for transfers of allocation blocks to other LIRs withing the NCC region. These blocks must be at least the size of a minimum allocation (/22 now, I guess). I can't imagine much support for any policy that would allow for transfer of individual /24s (be it via the RIRs or by trading them) because of the fragmentation / deaggregation caused. As far as I am concerned, this proposal is just another crutch to keep ipv4 alive for that little bit longer, so, while I don't really care about v4 anymore, I oppose it. rgds, Sascha Luck > >regards, > > Chris > From chrish at consol.net Tue Apr 3 13:08:28 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (Chris) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:08:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20120403104010.GD72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <4f79ad4e.48cc0e0a.10ff.317eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <4F79BEEB.5000208@consol.net> <20120402151530.GB72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4F7AC607.1080705@consol.net> <20120403095648.GC72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> <4F7ACDEA.5080008@consol.net> <20120403104010.GD72259@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <4F7ADA2C.2000106@consol.net> On 04/03/2012 12:40 PM, Sascha Luck wrote: > there is nothing to understand. well... err, probably right, i guess... ;) > I would assume that many (particularly smaller) LIRs are > not using all the allocated space. ...which means that they do not reach the minimum allocation size - and therefore don't get an allocation? i'll stick with my understanding that this is simply 'what you get anyway' (i.e. handled as 'needed by definition')... > I am not aware of the NCC reclaiming unused parts of any allocation. well then: *surprise* :) > while I don't really care about v4 anymore, I oppose it. to get back to the point, yes, i (obviously) oppose 2012-01, too. regards, Chris From gert at space.net Tue Apr 3 22:07:40 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 22:07:40 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [apwg-chairs] 2011-04 Decision to move to Last Call (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) Message-ID: <20120403200740.GZ84425@Space.Net> Dear AP WG, Sander and I have looked at the mails sent by you about the proposal 2011-04 (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation), and I tried to categorize everything hat has been said into bins like "support", "opposition", "side track discussion", "clarification" - the result of that is at the end of this mail. In the initial discussion phase, I counted nearly 150 e-mails. Of those that expressed a clear "support" or "opposition" opinion, the majority were in support for the proposal, thus we moved on to review phase, with some textual changes as suggested by you. In review phase, 3 people voiced their support, nobody voiced objections, and none of the people that had objections in discussion phase stated their opinion (neither positive nor negative). Given that, we assume that those that had reservations agreed to disagree but didn't want to stop the proposal, or agreed with our assessment that we have enough support to go ahead. The main argument for objection that we could make out was "this is not good stewardship, to give people more addresses than they need, without providing any documentation". I can see the argument, but I'm also convinced that part of good stewardship is 'finding the right balance between "too big" and "too small"' - and since a number of operators have spoken up and said that being able to increase their /32 to a /29 "just so" would ease their deployment, we took that as a strong enough counterargument. The argument voiced that "we should not make a specific proposal for 6rd" was already taken into account - the proposal is technology-agnostic. So, we think that we have enough support and no sustained opposition to call consensus, and move to Last Call. Emilio will do the formal announcement from the PDO tomorrow. If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know. Gert Doering, Address Policy WG Chair ----------------------------------------------------- Discussion Phase pro Michael Adams (want bits, not 6rd) Roger J?rgensen Anfinsen, Ragnar Sascha Lenz (want bits, not 6rd) Andy Davidson (with "ask for it" clause) Daniel Holme (no protocol specifics!) James Blessing (with additions for existing address holders, taken into v2.0 Jasper Jans David Freedman Roman Sokolov Tero Toikkanen Job Snijders Tom Hodgson (more bits, not tied to mechanisms) Wilhelm Boeddinghaus Rinse Kloek Sascha Luck Florian Fuessl Jerzy Pawlus Daniel Roesen against, with "want to see proper documentation that says 6rd" James Blessing [answered by Jan Zorz, discussion ended, later agreed] Martin Millnert Mikael Abrahamsson [give everybody who says "6rd" a /31] Nick Hilliard [answered by Jan Zorz, "is ask-for-it enough?"] Tim Chown against, with "make it easy to get a /29, but not automatic, ask for it" Remco Van Mook [answered by Jan Zorz, taken into v2.0 -> agreed] against, with "6rd is a bad protocol and there should be a temporary block" Turchanyi Geza [answered by Jan Zorz, "this is not 6rd-specific", Ole Troan, Ragnar Anfinsen] clarification Mikael Abrahamsson (reservation of a /26?) [answered by chair and proposer] Andy Davidson (would reservation be OK from global policy PoV?) Martin Stanislav (please clarify exact rules for /29../31, answered by prop.] unclear whether in favour or against Dan Luedtke Martin Millnert (*if* 6rd as a special case, make it temporary-only) [answered by Jan Zorz] Daniel Suchy chrish at consol.net "not big enough" side-track Randy Bush (let's go to a /16) [answered by chair, David Conrad, Roger J?rgensen, Jan Zorz, Florian Weimer] "make subsequent allocation policy easier (instead of initial?)" side-track Dan Luedtke [answered by Michael Adams, chair] Daniel Roesen [answered by chair, Jan Zorz, Remco Van Mook] "does 6rd need a /31 or /24?" side-track Mikael Abrahamsson, Jan Zorz "which operators are asking for 6rd" side-track Martin Millnert, Jan Zorz, Michael Adams "alternatives to 6rd" and "is it infinite?" side-track Ahmed Abu-Abed [answered by Jan Zorz, Remco Van Mook, Ole Troan, Nick Hilliard, Roger J?rgensen] "why not make it a /26 or /24 right away?" side-track Roger J?rgensen, Leo Vegoda, Nick Hilliard, Daniel Roesen, Jan Zorz ------------------------------------------------------------------- review phase pro Michael Adams Tiberiu Ungureanu Gleb Katenin side-track: "subsequent allocations Michael Adams, Tiberiu Ungureanu, Daniel Roesen, Jan Zorz, Nick Hilliard side-track: "how much address space does google have?" chrish at consol.net, Gleb Katenin -- have you enabled 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 alex at leefmann.com Wed Apr 4 02:18:24 2012 From: alex at leefmann.com (Alexander Leefmann) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 02:18:24 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) In-Reply-To: <4f79ad4c.4f650e0a.6466.3f7eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <4f79ad4c.4f650e0a.6466.3f7eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <54B5CCDA-DA16-42D8-B4D7-21267CA40B13@leefmann.com> Dear working group, > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 30 April 2012. > --> a) I don't like the idea, that this proposal tries to allow smaller networks then the minimum /21 (for the last /8 then /22) allocations to be transferred into the RIPE NCC region. As some may know there is a "marketplace" for IPv4 allocations in the LIR portal right now. On this marketplace the minimum size of a allocation to transfer is /21. I would strongly recommend not to de-aggregate allocations any further. On the other way if the author of the proposal can explain why she choose a /24 as minimum transfer size I would like to hear her reasons for that and maybe why not a /25 - yes I am aware of the "common sense" of filtering. --> c) Why would someone like to change the requirements a RIPE NCC member needs to fulfill to get an allocation? In other words I would like to read something like "the recipient must be able to explain the need of this allocation and will use a minimum of 50% of it for it's own services or businesses". To be honest when reading "[...]will not be sold within 15 months[...] I get the idea of making a business out of IPv4. I am sure that the author does mean something else and I wold love to hear her explanation of this wording. In general I like the idea of transferring IPv4 allocation into RIR regions where there is a good need of this resources. BUT I don't like the idea of bringing policies in position to use the exhaustion of IPv4 as a business. And since the whole proposal with words like "sell" sounds like a business plan. RIRs give internet ressources based on needs not on price tags. If we start to official sell resources RIRs will become money driven then community driven. Again I believe that the author of the proposal wasn't thinking of money when writing this idea down and can now explain to me why I am a paranoid. Thank you all for your attention. Best regards -- Alex From nick at inex.ie Wed Apr 4 13:01:50 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:01:50 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [apwg-chairs] 2011-04 Decision to move to Last Call (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <20120403200740.GZ84425@Space.Net> References: <20120403200740.GZ84425@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4F7C2A1E.4030506@inex.ie> On 03/04/2012 22:07, Gert Doering wrote: > If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the > conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know. agree with interpretation. Looks good to me, although my concerns about the proposal still stand. Nick From emadaio at ripe.net Wed Apr 4 15:22:15 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:22:15 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2011-04 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 2 May 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Wed Apr 4 15:56:08 2012 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:56:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [apwg-chairs] 2011-04 Decision to move to Last Call (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <20120403200740.GZ84425@Space.Net> References: <20120403200740.GZ84425@Space.Net> Message-ID: In case you are still keeping track, I agree with v2.0 of 2011-04. From jcurran at arin.net Wed Apr 4 17:03:21 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:03:21 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)) Message-ID: <0231863C-878F-4525-AA1E-AC3C221747FF@corp.arin.net> RIPE Policy Folks - I have no comments to make with regards to the merits of policy proposal 2012-01, but will comment for sake of clarity on the use of the words "sell" and "sold" in the proposal. In the policies in the ARIN region, we have made use of the term "transfer" for this purpose, although one can argue that "sell" and "sold" is equally accurate. The challenge with using the word "sell" is simply that for many readers it carries the connotation of 'free and clear' transfer of property to another. I do not know, (nor intend to assert) what transfer of number resources in the RIPE region means, but in the ARIN region we hold that there are multiple parties with rights to each number resource, and this includes the resource holder (who has the right of exclusive use) but also includes the community (who has the right of visibility into the public portion of the registration, the right to set policies by which the resource may be transferred or reclaimed, etc.) We've had parties come to ARIN and indicate that they have "bought" or "sold" their address blocks, and we have to point out that they may indeed have sold their particular rights to the address block, but that any transfer in our region must comply with the community policies, and ask that they put a transfer request (agreed to by the seller) so that we may transfer the number resources to the new registrant. In short, using terms like "sell" and "sold" in the policy text may create the impression for some readers that Internet number resources are just widgets to be bought and sold as desired, but that error is may be unavoidable in any case given the circumstances. I do not believe that the use of "sell" or "sold" is incorrect, but simply of question of personal judgement as to whether the improved readability is worth the connotations that some readers will draw as a result. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chrish at consol.net Wed Apr 4 17:54:47 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (Chris) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:54:47 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)) In-Reply-To: <0231863C-878F-4525-AA1E-AC3C221747FF@corp.arin.net> References: <0231863C-878F-4525-AA1E-AC3C221747FF@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <4F7C6EC7.7030701@consol.net> On 04/04/2012 05:03 PM, John Curran wrote: > region must comply with the community policies, and ask > that they put a transfer request (agreed to by the seller) > so that we may transfer the number resources to the new > registrant. this is exactly the problem. this implies that the ip space is an asset of the seller, which it is not. it is a commons, and if it is sparse, as any one has the same right to it, it is to be redistributed according to need, fair and equally. the problem is not that space is transfered. the problem is that the seller assumes that he has the (absolute) power over it, that it is his own, even if the requirements that lead to the allocation or assignment to him isn't valid anymore. a transfer (being a redistribution without ripe) is just as well as a redistribution with ripe - if and only if the conditions are identical. auctioning this off corrupts this principle. actually, talking about a sparse resource, it has to be returned to the pool if it isn't needed anymore. > In short, using terms like "sell" and "sold" in the policy > text may create the impression for some readers that Internet > number resources are just widgets to be bought and sold as > desired, for a reallity check i'd suggest to read http://ipv4marketgroup.com/ > but that error is may be unavoidable in any case > given the circumstances. I do not believe that the use of if a person gets a wrong idea, this is to be avoided, but i don't see a vital problem here. if it's erroneously formally put in writing, that'd be a real problem. regards, Chris From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Wed Apr 4 18:04:38 2012 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco Van Mook) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 17:04:38 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) In-Reply-To: <201204021344.q32DiiPj032719@rly22a.srv.mailcontrol.com> Message-ID: While I would strongly support the development of an inter-RIR transfer policy (and/or cleanup of the current intra-RIR transfer policy), I don't think this proposal is sufficiently clear and in line with other current policy in the region to work. In other words, I oppose this proposal. (just to be clear for the WG-chairs who are keeping count) What I would like to see instead is a simple framework, outlining the two options: 1) transferring TO the RIPE NCC service region 2) transferring FROM the RIPE NCC service region that clearly define which parts of the regular transfer policy would apply to such a transaction. With that, we keep all the rules about transfers in one place. 1) would be something like 'We welcome any address space transferred to the RIPE NCC service region as long as transferring it is in line with policies at the originating region and the entity receiving the space qualifies as outlined in the policy for address transfers within the service region' 2) would be something like 'You can transfer any address space to outside the RIPE NCC service region as long as transferring it is in line with policies at the receiving region and the address space qualifies for transfer as outlined in the policy for address transfers within the service region' Finally,if you then feel unhappy with the limitations in the current transfer policy, I would very much like to invite anyone to introduce a policy proposal to remove them. Best, Remco van Mook Director of Interconnection, EMEA remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com +31 61 135 6365 MOB EQUINIX 51-53 Great Marlborough Street London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom On 02-04-12 15:39, "Marco Schmidt" wrote: > >Dear Colleagues, > >A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for >discussion. > >You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ > >We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 30 April 2012. > >Regards > >Marco Schmidt >on behalf of the Policy Development Office >RIPE NCC > > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383. From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Apr 4 18:14:08 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:14:08 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <30E0189E-005F-4FE7-9B50-7035C4CD793A@gmail.com> On Apr 4, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Remco Van Mook wrote: > > While I would strongly support the development of an inter-RIR transfer > policy (and/or cleanup of the current intra-RIR transfer policy), I don't > think this proposal is sufficiently clear and in line with other current > policy in the region to work. In other words, I oppose this proposal. > (just to be clear for the WG-chairs who are keeping count) > > What I would like to see instead is a simple framework, outlining the two > options: > > 1) transferring TO the RIPE NCC service region > 2) transferring FROM the RIPE NCC service region > > that clearly define which parts of the regular transfer policy would apply > to such a transaction. With that, we keep all the rules about transfers in > one place. > > 1) would be something like 'We welcome any address space transferred to > the RIPE NCC service region as long as transferring it is in line with > policies at the originating region and the entity receiving the space > qualifies as outlined in the policy for address transfers within the > service region' > > 2) would be something like 'You can transfer any address space to outside > the RIPE NCC service region as long as transferring it is in line with > policies at the receiving region and the address space qualifies for > transfer as outlined in the policy for address transfers within the > service region' > > Finally,if you then feel unhappy with the limitations in the current > transfer policy, I would very much like to invite anyone to introduce a > policy proposal to remove them. Well put. That is very much in line with what is being done in other regions (including ARIN and APNIC). -Scott > > > Best, > > Remco van Mook > Director of Interconnection, EMEA > > remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com > +31 61 135 6365 MOB > > EQUINIX > 51-53 Great Marlborough Street > London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom > > > > > > > On 02-04-12 15:39, "Marco Schmidt" wrote: > >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for >> discussion. >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ >> >> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >> before 30 April 2012. >> >> Regards >> >> Marco Schmidt >> on behalf of the Policy Development Office >> RIPE NCC >> >> > > > > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383. > From jcurran at arin.net Wed Apr 4 21:39:46 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 19:39:46 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)) In-Reply-To: <4F7C6EC7.7030701@consol.net> References: <0231863C-878F-4525-AA1E-AC3C221747FF@corp.arin.net> <4F7C6EC7.7030701@consol.net> Message-ID: On Apr 4, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Chris wrote: > On 04/04/2012 05:03 PM, John Curran wrote: >> In short, using terms like "sell" and "sold" in the policy >> text may create the impression for some readers that Internet >> number resources are just widgets to be bought and sold as >> desired, > > for a reallity check i'd suggest to read http://ipv4marketgroup.com/ Actually, there's a longer list of such folks available here: All of them agree to ARIN's registration services agreement, including compliance with the number resource policies in the region. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From slz at baycix.de Thu Apr 5 14:28:11 2012 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 14:28:11 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)) In-Reply-To: <4F7C6EC7.7030701@consol.net> References: <0231863C-878F-4525-AA1E-AC3C221747FF@corp.arin.net> <4F7C6EC7.7030701@consol.net> Message-ID: <3A5A9D3C-A4A2-4675-B817-7604AF26E91B@baycix.de> [I've already given my statement - considering that as 'side-track' discussion more or less] Hi, > On 04/04/2012 05:03 PM, John Curran wrote: >> region must comply with the community policies, and ask >> that they put a transfer request (agreed to by the seller) >> so that we may transfer the number resources to the new >> registrant. > > this is exactly the problem. this implies that the ip space is an asset of the seller, which it is not. it is a commons, and if it is sparse, as any one has the same right to it, it is to be redistributed according to need, fair and equally. the problem is not that space is transfered. the problem is that the seller assumes that he has the (absolute) power over it, that it is his own, even if the requirements that lead to the allocation or assignment to him isn't valid anymore. > a transfer (being a redistribution without ripe) is just as well as a redistribution with ripe - if and only if the conditions are identical. auctioning this off corrupts this principle. > actually, talking about a sparse resource, it has to be returned to the pool if it isn't needed anymore. > well, at first, just to state the obvious once more a) For RIR-managed resources... ...this is basically true. b) For pre-RIR resources... ...RIR policies cannot be applied. Anyone can really sell this stuff, they seem to really own those. But of course this is not covered by this policy then anyways. I just want to point out that your assumption is not 100% true right now already :-) (And there is plenty of this pre-RIR stuff out there) >> In short, using terms like "sell" and "sold" in the policy >> text may create the impression for some readers that Internet >> number resources are just widgets to be bought and sold as >> desired, > > for a reallity check i'd suggest to read http://ipv4marketgroup.com/ > The question here is if we would like to have a controlled open market or an uncontrolled black market. Any transfer of any RIR resources SHOULD be needs based, following existing policy. But in a mostly business driven internet, in a mostly marked based economy today, it's really hard to explain why one shouldn't be able make money out of a scarce resource. Since i've stated (here and on multiple occasions throughout the years) that i tend to support non-commercial entities' point of view, i would prefer an equal-rights approach, too. But i doubt there is room for a global policy supporting this. Nowadays, i'm thinking more like - screw that, IPv4 is over, get IPv6 in this special case. There are working transition technologies by now. As long as the receiving end still has to show they need the resources like anyone has to today, i don't care much anymore if there is money involved in the process. There is IPv6, let those who are stupid pay the price for being stupid. >> but that error is may be unavoidable in any case >> given the circumstances. I do not believe that the use of > > if a person gets a wrong idea, this is to be avoided, but i don't see a vital problem here. > if it's erroneously formally put in writing, that'd be a real problem. The wording of the proposal is bad in general, but what to expect from "marketing guys and girls" :-) I've already stated my own concerns about that, all this adds up to me not supporting this proposal in this current form. But i might not object to the idea in general. Especially inter-RIR transfers should be allowed in general, without a doubt. But different conditions. (Someone please hit me with a stick if inter-RIR transfers are already possible by some existing policy i now forgot because no one ever used it. I only remember the ERX transfer project right now, which was a one-timer (IMHO), but as usual i may be 100% wrong) -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Thu Apr 5 14:37:55 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 13:37:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)) In-Reply-To: <3A5A9D3C-A4A2-4675-B817-7604AF26E91B@baycix.de> References: <0231863C-878F-4525-AA1E-AC3C221747FF@corp.arin.net> <4F7C6EC7.7030701@consol.net> <3A5A9D3C-A4A2-4675-B817-7604AF26E91B@baycix.de> Message-ID: <20120405123755.GA84660@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 02:28:11PM +0200, Sascha Lenz wrote: >But in a mostly business driven internet, in a mostly marked >based economy today, it's really hard to explain why one >shouldn't be able make money out of a scarce resource. I'm generally opposed to a market-based approach because the commodification of a commons will almost inevitably lead to abuse and to the players trying to cling on to IPv4 even longer. I can even foresee a situation where someone with a "valuable" ipv4 allocation could take an injunction to stop the roll-out of ipv6 because it would devalue their "investment". And yes, they will find a judge stupid or corrupt enough to decide so, especially in NL if I look at what the likes of BREIN get away with in the courts... rgds, Sascha Luck From slz at baycix.de Thu Apr 5 14:46:09 2012 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 14:46:09 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <20120404132139.4E8CE2A0178@mx00.baycix.de> References: <20120404132139.4E8CE2A0178@mx00.baycix.de> Message-ID: <7CE5C41D-FC61-40DC-8772-FFBCDB4114A5@baycix.de> Hi all, > > Dear Colleagues, > > The proposal described in 2011-04 is now at its Concluding Phase. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 > I didn't have a change of mind lately, still happy to support it in this form. (Yes, i'm selfish, "more bits to brag with^W^Wmake deployment easier in some cases", no downsides - /29 is reserved anyways for existing LIRs) -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect From sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com Thu Apr 5 18:22:17 2012 From: sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com (sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:22:17 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) Message-ID: <20120405092217.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.3d6d47c2b7.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com Thu Apr 5 18:57:39 2012 From: sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com (sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:57:39 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) Message-ID: <20120405095739.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.cf7697d211.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Sorry, in plain text this time.... Thank you for your comments on proposal 2012-01, which I have submitted. I will undertake to speak to several of the points you have raised. My opinion on the question of the use of the word "sold" is that I would also be ok with the word "transfer". I believe this policy can cover two situations: 1) where related companies, for example ABC-NA transfers a block from ARIN to ABC-EMEA to RIPE-NCC, and no money is exchanged; and 2) where unrelated organizations transfer a block. Only in the second case is money likely to be exchanged in order to encourage the sending organization to initiate the transfer. Thus only the second case is truly a sale. And let's be very clear that I do mean for money to be exchanged: in most cases there is work to be done to free up blocks of IPv4 addresses for re-allocation, and the incentive for entities to do so is financial benefit. Otherwise, large portions of their blocks will continue to sit dormant and unused. The entire purpose of the IPv4 address market is to free up dormant, unused IPv4 addresses to fill needs. A number of people have questioned the 15 month window before allowing a buyer to re-sell. I have had suggestions ranging from 12 months to 36 months. I think the point is that there is some feeling that an entity could acquire IPv4 addresses with the intent to flip them for profit. I am not sure this would be possible since at some point, the transition to IPv6 will make IPv4 addresses a declining value asset. I, for one, believe in a free market for IPv4 addresses, where no holding period is required. In a free market for IP's, the price of IP's would move up and down like the price of a commodity. However, there are artificial trading rules at play with IPv4, so some window seems to be needed. Hence, I chose 15 months as a compromise for those who feel that 15 months allows a company to satisfy its IPv6 conversion needs and possibly be done with IPv4 and be ready to sell them. To Mr. Blessing's question about an LIR changing its policy, I believe the answer is that there would be a legal binding agreement between the buyer and the seller that would cover this situation. The RIPE-NCC policy does not need to cover the legalities between the two parties. I am not sure what the question of a reverse policy refers to? Do you mean to reverse the transaction? If so, you could add a clause that states that the two parties can reverse the transfer at any time in the future or something to that effect. I did have a hypothetical discussion with Sanjaya of APNIC for a situation that may require this. I was asking about a potential lease situation where an APNIC member may wish to lease a block from another RIR. He wondered if the APNIC registry could initially be updated to reflect the lease, and then once the APNIC member had completed the upgrade to IPv6, the IPv4 addresses could be returned to the originator. We then wondered how to reverse the transfer to return the IP's to the owner. This clause above that Mr. Blessing is possibly questioning about would take care of lease returns. I believe these transfers would always be between entities, ie. LIR's. Mr. Hilliard is concerned about Afrinic losing IP's. Frankly, I have not looked at oversupply or demand in the Afrinic region. Right now Afrinic does not have an Inter-RIR transfer policy and by including a statement that RIPE-NCC will only transfer with RIR's that have a policy, you allow Afrinic to take care of itself. Mr. Lenz is concerned about the use of the word "business" purposes. That is, perhaps, a semantic point. I believe that the word business should not be taken too narrowly. Business may be defined as an activity a person or organization is engaged in, and I would just take it at that. Mr. Leefman suggested we realign the proposal to a /21 as the minimum size, and I think that is an excellent suggestion. Other RIR's such as ARIN and APNIC work with a minimum size of a /24 and I was trying to keep RIPE in line with them, but frankly that is such as small block, why bother? Mr. Leefman also suggested changing the requirements for proving need to align with the intra-RIR policy. In checking with Mr. Madaio, he informs me that there have been no intra-RIR transfers to date. That suggests to me that RIPE's intra-RIR policy needs some rework, if I may be blunt. My experience with transfer markets in other RIR service areas has shown three things: 1) that entities need to be assured that their transfers will be approved, when they put money on the line, 2) that when they pay, they don't want, or believe that they should have to, go through the same needs justification process as when they apply for free allocations, 3) while the period of a free allocation may be fixed (ie 3 months), when a business has a need and a business plan for which it acquires IP's it is a much longer time horizon, and it is not RIPE-NCC's role to limit its members business planning horizon to 3 months. (If RIPE approves me for a three month supply now, I have no guarantee I will get another 3 month supply in 3 months....I cannot plan or operate this way!). For example, and you may not care about what other RIR's do, but ARIN has a 24 month supply for a transfer, and as you may know, we are working to convince ARIN to modify its policy on needs justification for transfers. So, I would not support a change in the inter-RIR policy to match your intra-RIR policy. I would instead suggest that you consider modification of your intra-RIR policy to match what your constituents need. Lastly, I like Mr. Van Mook's comments, other than that he opposes the policy. It is excellent and simple to outline the transfer in and transfer out options, and as noted above, I concur with him that the RIPE intra-RIR policy needs clean-up. I guess I thought that was a bigger mountain than I could climb, but if it is possible to have a conversation about doing it at the same time, I am all ears. Again, thank you for your support, your comments, and your thoughtful feedback. Respectfully, Sandra Brown From jcurran at arin.net Thu Apr 5 19:16:54 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:16:54 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)) In-Reply-To: <3A5A9D3C-A4A2-4675-B817-7604AF26E91B@baycix.de> References: <0231863C-878F-4525-AA1E-AC3C221747FF@corp.arin.net> <4F7C6EC7.7030701@consol.net> <3A5A9D3C-A4A2-4675-B817-7604AF26E91B@baycix.de> Message-ID: <36D7FC27-F306-4CB5-90E8-14962D375979@corp.arin.net> On Apr 5, 2012, at 8:28 AM, Sascha Lenz wrote: > [I've already given my statement - considering that as 'side-track' discussion more or less] > ... > well, at first, just to state the obvious once more > > a) For RIR-managed resources... > > ...this is basically true. > > b) For pre-RIR resources... > > ...RIR policies cannot be applied. Anyone can really sell this stuff, they seem to really own those. That may be regional difference (or not), as in the ARIN region we run a single registry with a single set of policies which apply to all resources. These policies not only include what fields (e.g. abuse poc) are present and publicly visible, but also policies that affect how resources may be transferred, subdivided, etc. We actively defend (including in courts as needed) ARIN's ability to operate the registry accordingly to the policies developed by our community, and have never been directed to change the registry contrary to these policies. If your 'obvious' statement is true for RIPE, then it is likely something which has been established on a regional basis. I do not know if that affects consideration of the 2012-01 proposal but note it for sake of clarity. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From drc at virtualized.org Thu Apr 5 21:50:00 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 12:50:00 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)) In-Reply-To: <36D7FC27-F306-4CB5-90E8-14962D375979@corp.arin.net> References: <0231863C-878F-4525-AA1E-AC3C221747FF@corp.arin.net> <4F7C6EC7.7030701@consol.net> <3A5A9D3C-A4A2-4675-B817-7604AF26E91B@baycix.de> <36D7FC27-F306-4CB5-90E8-14962D375979@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <438F51C3-210A-470B-BFEE-CE9ED2E59952@virtualized.org> On Apr 5, 2012, at 10:16 AM, John Curran wrote: >> well, at first, just to state the obvious once more >> >> a) For RIR-managed resources... >> >> ...this is basically true. >> >> b) For pre-RIR resources... >> >> ...RIR policies cannot be applied. Anyone can really sell this stuff, they seem to really own those. > > That may be regional difference (or not), as in the ARIN region > we run a single registry with a single set of policies which > apply to all resources. Which is, of course, not particularly relevant to the question of whether resources can be bought or sold. It is only relevant to whether or not ARIN will update their registry to reflect reality in their "single registry". It would seem ARIN has decided that accuracy of registration data is secondary to conformance to "consensus" policy. I hope RIPE does not follow ARIN down that particular path as such an approach would appear to strongly encourage the proliferation of registration information databases which will undoubtedly result in challenges in network operations. I do not believe registration information databases should be used as a weapon to try to force compliance to policy. Regards, -drc From jcurran at arin.net Thu Apr 5 22:02:40 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 20:02:40 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)) In-Reply-To: <438F51C3-210A-470B-BFEE-CE9ED2E59952@virtualized.org> References: <0231863C-878F-4525-AA1E-AC3C221747FF@corp.arin.net> <4F7C6EC7.7030701@consol.net> <3A5A9D3C-A4A2-4675-B817-7604AF26E91B@baycix.de> <36D7FC27-F306-4CB5-90E8-14962D375979@corp.arin.net> <438F51C3-210A-470B-BFEE-CE9ED2E59952@virtualized.org> Message-ID: On Apr 5, 2012, at 3:50 PM, David Conrad wrote: > It would seem ARIN has decided that accuracy of registration data is secondary to conformance to "consensus" policy. I hope RIPE does not follow ARIN down that particular path as such an approach would appear to strongly encourage the proliferation of registration information databases which will undoubtedly result in challenges in network operations. So far it hasn't been a problem, but that's best a discussion for mailing lists back in the ARIN region. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Apr 6 00:32:32 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 22:32:32 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20120405092217.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.3d6d47c2b7.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120405092217.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.3d6d47c2b7.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Hi, On Thursday, April 5, 2012, wrote: > Thank you for your comments on proposal 2012-01, which I have submitted. > I will undertake to speak to several of the points you have raised. > > My opinion on the question of the use of the word "sold" is that I would > also be ok with the word "transfer". I believe this policy can cover two > situations: 1) where related companies, for example ABC-NA transfers a > block from ARIN to ABC-EMEA to RIPE-NCC, and no money is exchanged; and 2) > where unrelated organizations transfer a block. Only in the second case is > money likely to be exchanged in order to encourage the sending organization > to initiate the transfer. Thus only the second case is truly a sale. And > let's be very clear that I do mean for money to be exchanged: in most > cases there is work to be done to free up blocks of IPv4 addresses for > re-allocation, and the incentive for entities to do so is financial > benefit. > In the past, the incentive has been to act as good net citizens by following policy that mandates return of unused resources. > Otherwise, large portions of their blocks will continue to sit dormant and > unused. The entire purpose of the IPv4 address market is to free up > dormant, unused IPv4 addresses to fill needs. > A cynic might say that the entire purpose is to make money. > A number of people have questioned the 15 month window before allowing a > buyer to re-sell. I have had suggestions ranging from 12 months to 36 > months. I think the point is that there is some feeling that an entity > could acquire IPv4 addresses with the intent to flip them for profit. I am > not sure this would be possible since at some point, the transition to IPv6 > will make IPv4 addresses a declining value asset. I, for one, believe in a > free market for IPv4 addresses, where no holding period is required. In a > free market for IP's, the price of IP's would move up and down like the > price of a commodity. However, there are artificial trading rules at play > with IPv4, so some window seems to be needed. Hence, I chose 15 months as > a compromise for those who feel that 15 months allows a company to satisfy > its IPv6 conversion needs and possibly be done with IPv4 and be ready to > sell them. > > To Mr. Blessing's question about an LIR changing its policy, I believe the > answer is that there would be a legal binding agreement between the buyer > and the seller that would cover this situation. The RIPE-NCC policy does > not need to cover the legalities between the two parties. > > I am not sure what the question of a reverse policy refers to? > I'm pretty sure it means reverse DNS. > Do you mean to reverse the transaction? If so, you could add a clause > that states that the two parties can reverse the transfer at any time in > the future or something to that effect. I did have a hypothetical > discussion with Sanjaya of APNIC for a situation that may require this. I > was asking about a potential lease situation where an APNIC member may wish > to lease a block from another RIR. He wondered if the APNIC registry could > initially be updated to reflect the lease, and then once the APNIC member > had completed the upgrade to IPv6, the IPv4 addresses could be returned to > the originator. We then wondered how to reverse the transfer to return the > IP's to the owner. This clause above that Mr. Blessing is possibly > questioning about would take care of lease returns. > > I believe these transfers would always be between entities, ie. LIR's. > > Mr. Hilliard is concerned about Afrinic losing IP's. Frankly, I have not > looked at oversupply or demand in the Afrinic region. Right now Afrinic > does not have an Inter-RIR transfer policy > I would say that here in the AfriNIC region, we do have such a policy, or at least a statement of the sense of the community on the issue. It just doesn't allow what you want. You can find it in our Soft-Landing policy. > and by including a statement that RIPE-NCC will only transfer with RIR's > that have a policy, you allow Afrinic to take care of itself. > > Mr. Lenz is concerned about the use of the word "business" purposes. That > is, perhaps, a semantic point. I believe that the word business should not > be taken too narrowly. Business may be defined as an activity a person or > organization is engaged in, and I would just take it at that. > Sascha is correct I think, in that buying and selling Internet resources is a business. Internet numbering resources should be used to provide connectivity and other network services, not for speculation in a numbers market. > > Mr. Leefman suggested we realign the proposal to a /21 as the minimum > size, and I think that is an excellent suggestion. Other RIR's such as > ARIN and APNIC work with a minimum size of a /24 and I was trying to > keep RIPE in line with them, but frankly that is such as small > block, why bother? > > Mr. Leefman also suggested changing the requirements for proving need to > align with the intra-RIR policy. In checking with Mr. Madaio, he informs > me that there have been no intra-RIR transfers to date. That suggests to me > that RIPE's intra-RIR policy needs some rework, > Does it not instead suggest that there is not yet a need for intra-RIRS transfers, since there are addresses left in the RIR allocation pool? > f I may be blunt. My experience with transfer markets in other RIR > service areas has shown three things: 1) that entities need to be assured > that their transfers will be approved, when they put money on the line, > 2) that when they pay, they don't want, or believe that they should have > to, go through the same needs justification process as when they apply for > free allocations, > Then perhaps you can help educate your customers that the RIR policy making communities seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of retaining needs based justification. > 3) while the period of a free allocation may be fixed (ie 3 months), when > a business has a need and a business plan for which it acquires IP's it is > a much longer time horizon, and it is not RIPE-NCC's role to limit its > members business planning horizon to 3 months. > That is correct. The RIPE NCC as the secretariat of the RIPE policy making community has as it's role the administration of numbering resources according to community policy. In other words, it is the role of RIPE (the community) to determine things like time horizons in the prescence of dwindling common resources. (If RIPE approves me for a three month supply now, I have no guarantee I > will get another 3 month supply in 3 months....I cannot plan or operate > this way!). > Neither can others if they stick with a v4 only strategy. Everyone is in the same boat. Regards, McTim > > For example, and you may not care about what other RIR's do, but ARIN has > a 24 month supply for a transfer, and as you may know, we are working > to convince ARIN to modify its policy on needs justification for transfers. > > So, I would not support a change in the inter-RIR policy to your > intra-RIR policy. I would instead suggest that you consider modification > of your intra-RIR policy to match what your constituents need. > > Lastly, I like Mr. Van Mook's comments, other than that he opposes the > policy. It is excellent and simple to outline the transfer in and transfer > out options, and as noted above, I concur with him that the RIPE intra-RIR > policy needs clean-up. I guess I thought that was a bigger mountain than I > could climb, but if it is possible to have a conversation about doing it at > the same time, I am all ears. > > Again, thank you for your support, your comments, and your thoughtful > feedback. > > Respectfully, > Sandra Brown > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Sat Apr 7 03:14:13 2012 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 01:14:13 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)) In-Reply-To: <3A5A9D3C-A4A2-4675-B817-7604AF26E91B@baycix.de> References: <0231863C-878F-4525-AA1E-AC3C221747FF@corp.arin.net> <4F7C6EC7.7030701@consol.net> <3A5A9D3C-A4A2-4675-B817-7604AF26E91B@baycix.de> Message-ID: <4F7F94E5.3000303@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Sascha Lenz wrote: > [...] I only remember the > ERX transfer project right now, which was a one-timer (IMHO), Correct, the goal was to rectify some artefacts, caused by (Internet-)History and to move the registration data to the "correct" one of the 3 RIRs. The process was managed collectively by the RIRs, thus not on a voluntary basis of a particular resource holder. And, there was no financial implication (in the sense of being compensated or charged). > but as usual i may be 100% wrong) I guess not in this case :-) Wilfried From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Sat Apr 7 06:09:10 2012 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 04:09:10 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)) In-Reply-To: <4F7F94E5.3000303@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <0231863C-878F-4525-AA1E-AC3C221747FF@corp.arin.net> <4F7C6EC7.7030701@consol.net> <3A5A9D3C-A4A2-4675-B817-7604AF26E91B@baycix.de> <4F7F94E5.3000303@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <4F7FBDE6.1010901@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Sascha Lenz wrote: > > >>[...] I only remember the >>ERX transfer project right now, which was a one-timer (IMHO), > > > Correct, > the goal was to rectify some artefacts, caused by (Internet-)History and > to move the registration data to the "correct" one of the 3 RIRs. Of course that should have been "one of the *5* RIRs"! Blush, Wilfried > The process was managed collectively by the RIRs, thus not on a voluntary > basis of a particular resource holder. > > And, there was no financial implication (in the sense of being compensated > or charged). > > >>but as usual i may be 100% wrong) > > > I guess not in this case :-) > > Wilfried > From gert at Space.Net Tue Apr 10 10:13:42 2012 From: gert at Space.Net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:13:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Decision to move to Last Call (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) Message-ID: <20120410081342.GA73540@Space.Net> Dear AP WG, 2011-05 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) has come to the end of the Review Phase. Sander and I have gone through the mails sent by you in the discussion phase and review phase, categorizing everything into "support", "opposition", "side track discussion", and so on - as usual :-) - all the details are listed below. Overall, there was very strong support for the proposal, with a fairly high number of supportive e-mails. In the discussion phase, we had a number of people that wanted to see textual changes, or required clarification on details. Some voices had reservation or opposed the proposal initially but changed that to "neutral" or "support" after discussion with the chairs. Two people opposed on the principle of "no special rules" - more to that later. In review phase, 18 individuals expressed their explicit support (some of them relaying support from industry bodies, but this did not influence the decision process). One person sustained his opposition, based on "there should not be a special rule for IXP/ISPs" and "only IXP folks are supporting their support, non-IXPs are underrepresented and would otherwise oppose the proposal". Indeed, many of the voices supporting the proposal have come from people working for IXPs, but I see a number of supporters that I know do *not* work for an IXP - and I also know that there are lots of non-IXP people on the address policy list who are well-capable to express their opposition to a policy proposal. So that part of the argument doesn't hold. Remains the counter-argument of non-supporting special-cases for IXPs - and indeed, the address policy could be much more simple if all consumers of IP addresses were equal. They aren't, and thus we allow special cases if there is enough support for it. Counting voices, I see very strong support. So, we think that we have enough support to call consensus, and move to Last Call. Emilio will do the formal announcement from the PDO soon. If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know. Gert Doering, Address Policy WG Chair ----------------------------------------------------- Discussion Phase pro James Blessing Babak Farrokhi Brian Nisbet Remco Van Mook Martin Millnert Sascha Lenz (even if "not a fan of special entities") Niels Bakker Tom Hodgson "worried about special cases, but still supports policy" Henk Steenman Wolfgang Tremmel Larisa Yurkina Harald Michl David Freedman Job Snijders Vincent PAGES Barry O'Donovan Michiel Appelman Steven Bakker Tom Bird Erik Bais Jan Zorz Carlos Friacas David Croft Basile Bluntschli Rolf Sch?rer Daniel Holme Kjetil Otter Olsen Sascha Luck Nick Hilliard (with some reservactions about the "must do IPv6" bits) against Florian Weimer "IXPs shouldn't be special-cased" chrish at consol.net "no special treatment... 'no'" "this should not be necessary" Nigel Titley (later agrees with intent of proposal) Jim Reid ("reservations but no strong objection") clarifications Dan Luedtke ("which /16 is used?"), answered by proposer Remco Van Mook (sizing criteria?), answered by proposer and chair, text integrated into next version Martin Millnert (what about multiple peering LANs?), answered by proposer Sascha Lenz (renumbering time?), answered by Niels Bakker Nigel Titley ("shouldn't be the every-lir-gets-a-/22 rule be good enough?"), +1'ed by Jim Reid, answered by proposer Henk Uijterwaal ("will v4 IXPs be needed after v4 runout?") side-track "why does an IXP have to return PI and not PA?" Florian Weimer, Niels Bakker side-track "shouldn't this be limited to non-commercial IXPs?" Erik Bais, Andy Davidson, Jim Reid side-track "address assignment must be fair, no special rules for IXPs, and non-IXP-folks are not properly represented at APWG anyway" chrish at consol.net, Nick Hilliard (multiple mails) Review Phase, v3.0 with textual changes suggested in discussion phase pro James Blessing Sascha Luck Jan Zorz Sascha Lenz Remco van Mook Florian Hibler (needs more coffee) Paul Thornton Arnold Nipper Job Snijders Alexander Leefmann Lindqvist Kurt Erik Christian Kaufmann Kjetil Otter Olsen Petr Jiran J?r?me Fleury Jan Torreele John Souter Sylwester Biernacki against chrish at consol.net side remark Turchanyi Geza "it's good that the WG affected is supporting the proposal" (side track discussion about organizations or individuals speaking in the APWG) -- have you enabled 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 Ragnar.Anfinsen at altibox.no Tue Apr 10 15:09:01 2012 From: Ragnar.Anfinsen at altibox.no (Anfinsen, Ragnar) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:09:01 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <20120404132253.18D3E38002@asav9.lyse.net> References: <20120404132253.18D3E38002@asav9.lyse.net> Message-ID: +1 MVH/Regards Ragnar Anfinsen > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > bounces at ripe.net] P? vegne av Emilio Madaio > Sendt: 4. april 2012 15:22 > Til: policy-announce at ripe.net > Kopi: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Emne: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of > the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) > > > Dear Colleagues, > > The proposal described in 2011-04 is now at its Concluding Phase. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 > > > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 2 May 2012. > > > Regards > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > From turchanyi.geza at gmail.com Wed Apr 11 14:02:50 2012 From: turchanyi.geza at gmail.com (Turchanyi Geza) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:02:50 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: <20120404132253.18D3E38002@asav9.lyse.net> Message-ID: Hello, I still oppose this policy, however, support the "bon-volont?" of the proposers. It is bad to make looser the address allocation rules at the RIR level. Address allocation rules MUST be the same for every regional Internet registry. It is also bad to propose "one size fit all" style rules. When Randy said that why not to allocate a /16, he was just ironic, I am sure. I said that "bon-volont?" of the proposers merits its support. 6RD is here, and we do not have time to fine tune it and make it more address freindly, even if it is possible, Therefore is is wise to create exceptional rules that could support 6RD, however, these rules should be discussed at global level and MUST be valid only for a limited period of time. Best, G?za On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Anfinsen, Ragnar < Ragnar.Anfinsen at altibox.no> wrote: > +1 > > MVH/Regards > Ragnar Anfinsen > > > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > > Fra: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > > bounces at ripe.net] P? vegne av Emilio Madaio > > Sendt: 4. april 2012 15:22 > > Til: policy-announce at ripe.net > > Kopi: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > > Emne: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of > > the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) > > > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > The proposal described in 2011-04 is now at its Concluding Phase. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 > > > > > > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to > > address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 2 May 2012. > > > > > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > > Policy Development Officer > > RIPE NCC > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emadaio at ripe.net Wed Apr 11 15:16:46 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:16:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Last Call for Comments (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 May 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Wed Apr 11 15:21:38 2012 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:21:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: <20120404132253.18D3E38002@asav9.lyse.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 14:02, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > It is bad to make looser the address allocation rules at the RIR level. > Address allocation rules MUST be the same for every regional Internet > registry. No one is stopping the other RIRs from following suit; if anything this will most likely speed up adaption. I agree that a similar policy across all RIRs is desirable, though. > Therefore is is wise to create exceptional rules that could support 6RD, > however, these rules should be discussed at global level and MUST be valid > only for a limited period of time. So you want to have a goldrush period where LIR grab a /29 because they can and then exclude LIR which are created at a later date and/or LIRs which did not act quickly enough from gaining the same resources? Or should LIRs be required to return addresses assigned under this policy? Will they be required to use this for 6rd only to ensure simple returns? What about 6rdv2? Will this be covered under allowed use? What about 7rd? What about something else entirely? -- Richard From turchanyi.geza at gmail.com Wed Apr 11 17:19:12 2012 From: turchanyi.geza at gmail.com (Turchanyi Geza) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:19:12 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: <20120404132253.18D3E38002@asav9.lyse.net> Message-ID: Hello Richard, On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Richard Hartmann < richih.mailinglist at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 14:02, Turchanyi Geza > wrote: > > > It is bad to make looser the address allocation rules at the RIR level. > > Address allocation rules MUST be the same for every regional Internet > > registry. > > No one is stopping the other RIRs from following suit; if anything > this will most likely speed up adaption. I agree that a similar policy > across all RIRs is desirable, though. > There is a common rule, the HD ratio. It is in an RFC. > > > > Therefore is is wise to create exceptional rules that could support 6RD, > > however, these rules should be discussed at global level and MUST be > valid > > only for a limited period of time. > > So you want to have a goldrush period where LIR grab a /29 because > they can and then exclude LIR which are created at a later date and/or > LIRs which did not act quickly enough from gaining the same resources? > Or should LIRs be required to return addresses assigned under this > policy? Will they be required to use this for 6rd only to ensure > simple returns? What about 6rdv2? Will this be covered under allowed > use? What about 7rd? What about something else entirely? > > Definitely not. However, the current proposal might provoque a goldrush period. Even worse: LIRs tend to merge. In the IPv4 world DEC asked for a class A space and got it. So did HP and Compaq Computers. Who owns these three class A today? HP, because Compaq swallowed DEC, then HP swallowed Compaq. The current proposal pave the road for similar stories, even by very small LIRs. Goldrush belever will profit from this! As I mentionned, even 6RD coukld fit in the old allocation framework and some people might invent even more need for addresses, if you allow loosing the rules. Best, G?za . > -- > Richard > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jan at go6.si Wed Apr 11 17:27:24 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:27:24 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: <20120404132253.18D3E38002@asav9.lyse.net> Message-ID: <4F85A2DC.9080200@go6.si> On 4/11/12 5:19 PM, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > There is a common rule, the HD ratio. It is in an RFC. Hi, Looks like we'll discuss HD ratio at Ljubljana meeting :) > As I mentionned, even 6RD coukld fit in the old allocation framework and > some people might invent even more need for addresses, if you allow > loosing the rules. Community decided they want to address the observed operational issue and at the same time don't want to make any technology "special". Why are we going in circles here? We've been through this 3 times already... :) Cheers, Jan From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Wed Apr 11 17:47:09 2012 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:47:09 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: <20120404132253.18D3E38002@asav9.lyse.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 17:19, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > Definitely not. However, the current proposal might provoque a goldrush > period. If everyone has easy access to a /29, there is no goldrush. > The current proposal pave the road for similar stories, even by very small > LIRs. Goldrush belever will profit from this! If they really _need_ 3 * /29, they will justify it and get them. If they don't need it, the relative waste is minimal. Merging LIRs are not that common and it's not as if everyone would get the exhaustion equivalent of a /8. > As I mentionned, even 6RD coukld fit in the old allocation framework and > some people might invent even more need for addresses, if you allow loosing > the rules. The 'r' in 6rd means "rapid". I agree with Jan, let's not go in circles. Richard From fw at deneb.enyo.de Wed Apr 11 17:10:56 2012 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:10:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [eix-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: (Christian Kaufmann's message of "Mon, 2 Apr 2012 13:11:07 +0200") References: <1331048500.30490@mobil.space.net> <20120329112104.GA72789@Space.Net> Message-ID: <87zkai1eyn.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * Christian Kaufmann: > I support this proposal, as new IXs and the extension of existing ones are vital > for the future of the internet. Regarding the "extension" aspect---does the proposed policy support multiple disparate peering LANs for a single host organization? To me, the wording sugggests "no", but it's somewhat ambiguous. From gert at space.net Wed Apr 11 19:25:45 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:25:45 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: <20120404132253.18D3E38002@asav9.lyse.net> Message-ID: <20120411172545.GS84425@Space.Net> Hi, I cannot let this particular claim unanswered: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 05:19:12PM +0200, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Richard Hartmann < > richih.mailinglist at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 14:02, Turchanyi Geza > > wrote: > > > It is bad to make looser the address allocation rules at the RIR level. > > > Address allocation rules MUST be the same for every regional Internet > > > registry. > > > > No one is stopping the other RIRs from following suit; if anything > > this will most likely speed up adaption. I agree that a similar policy > > across all RIRs is desirable, though. > > There is a common rule, the HD ratio. It is in an RFC. Indeed, currently all regions have the HD ratio rule, and they even have the same number for it. But if you look at how that came to be, it's more due to the historic evolution of the IPv6 alloction policies in the first place than to any governing standard that says "it must be so". To the contrary, every region is free to make their own IPv6 policy that suits their membership. ARIN has had differences ("distinct networks" policy) for the longest time, as had RIPE ("PI multihoming requirements", not everybody else had that), and so on. So please stop that sub-thread now. The claim that address allocation rules must be the same in all RIRs is false, and everybody who can google for the current IPv6 policies in the regions can convince themselves of that. Thus it's not a relevant argument here and now, and only wasting bandwidth. (Feel free to bring up a global policy proposal to make the IPv6 policies identical across all regions, but that would have to be a *new* proposal, and have to be discussed in a new context) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled 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 turchanyi.geza at gmail.com Wed Apr 11 20:04:45 2012 From: turchanyi.geza at gmail.com (Turchanyi Geza) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:04:45 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <20120411172545.GS84425@Space.Net> References: <20120404132253.18D3E38002@asav9.lyse.net> <20120411172545.GS84425@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hello Gert, On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > I cannot let this particular claim unanswered: > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 05:19:12PM +0200, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Richard Hartmann < > > richih.mailinglist at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 14:02, Turchanyi Geza < > turchanyi.geza at gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > It is bad to make looser the address allocation rules at the RIR > level. > > > > Address allocation rules MUST be the same for every regional Internet > > > > registry. > > > > > > No one is stopping the other RIRs from following suit; if anything > > > this will most likely speed up adaption. I agree that a similar policy > > > across all RIRs is desirable, though. > > > > There is a common rule, the HD ratio. It is in an RFC. > > > Indeed, currently all regions have the HD ratio rule, and they even have > the same number for it. But if you look at how that came to be, it's more > due to the historic evolution of the IPv6 alloction policies in the first > place than to any governing standard that says "it must be so". > This divergence is a problem, I think. > To the contrary, every region is free to make their own IPv6 policy that > suits their membership. ARIN has had differences ("distinct networks" > policy) for the longest time, as had RIPE ("PI multihoming requirements", > not everybody else had that), and so on. > > This is an argument or a counter argument? > > So please stop that sub-thread now. The claim that address allocation > rules must be the same in all RIRs is false, and everybody who can > google for the current IPv6 policies in the regions can convince > themselves of that. Thus it's not a relevant argument here and now, > and only wasting bandwidth. > > (Feel free to bring up a global policy proposal to make the IPv6 policies > identical across all regions, but that would have to be a *new* proposal, > and have to be discussed in a new context) > My problem is that the divergencies invented in the RIPE region make the creation of a common policy harder. Best, G?za > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > have you enabled 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Wed Apr 11 20:32:39 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:32:39 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: <20120404132253.18D3E38002@asav9.lyse.net> <20120411172545.GS84425@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20120411183239.GX84425@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 08:04:45PM +0200, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > > > There is a common rule, the HD ratio. It is in an RFC. > > > > Indeed, currently all regions have the HD ratio rule, and they even have > > the same number for it. But if you look at how that came to be, it's more > > due to the historic evolution of the IPv6 alloction policies in the first > > place than to any governing standard that says "it must be so". > > This divergence is a problem, I think. Evidence so far doesn't seem to back that, and I have not seen anyone else stand up recently and voice their wish for a unified global IPv6 assignment and allocation policy. Regions are different, and this is why we *have* 5 regional IRs, to take that into account. > > To the contrary, every region is free to make their own IPv6 policy that > > suits their membership. ARIN has had differences ("distinct networks" > > policy) for the longest time, as had RIPE ("PI multihoming requirements", > > not everybody else had that), and so on. > > > This is an argument or a counter argument? It is to show that you should make up your mind. Regarding IPv6 PI, you were *opposing* a proposal that made the polices more comparable on a global basis. Now what, do you want equal policies, or not? > My problem is that the divergencies invented in the RIPE region make the > creation of a common policy harder. Creation of a common policy is not a particular goal of this working group, unless someone brings up a policy proposal explicitely tagged as "global policy proposal" (which we need as soon as it affects ICANN to RIR distribution). There will always be cases where one region introduces a change that will be picked up by other regions - or not, if that change is not suitable for other regions. So policy might re-synch itself, or might not. So while we listen to you, that particular argument in itself is no reason to stop or change 2011-04. We do regional policy. (And yes, I'm aware that there is only one global routing table. 2011-04 will not introduce extra prefixes, and one /29 will take exactly as much TCAM space as one /32). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled 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 turchanyi.geza at gmail.com Wed Apr 11 20:53:45 2012 From: turchanyi.geza at gmail.com (Turchanyi Geza) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:53:45 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <20120411183239.GX84425@Space.Net> References: <20120404132253.18D3E38002@asav9.lyse.net> <20120411172545.GS84425@Space.Net> <20120411183239.GX84425@Space.Net> Message-ID: > (And yes, I'm aware that there is only one global routing table. 2011-04 > will not introduce extra prefixes, and one /29 will take exactly as much > TCAM space as one /32). > This is a point where we agree. > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > have you enabled 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 11 22:04:02 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:04:02 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] In favor of 2012-01 Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > this is exactly the problem. this implies that the ip space is an asset of the > seller, which it is not. it is a commons, and if it is sparse, as any one has the > same right to it, it is to be redistributed according to need, fair and equally. The IP address space is not and never has been a commons. Not for those of us who actually understand the vocabulary of resource economics and know what the term "commons" means. For IP addresses to be a "commons" they all would have to be available for use for anyone at any time; i.e., there would have to be no exclusive occupation of it. And of course that doesn't work technically, does it? IP address blocks have to be uniquely and exclusively assigned to specific users to function on the internet. Which means the address pool is not a commons - end of story. Because IP addresses are exclusively assigned, they can be governed either as common pool resources (in which a governance agency establishes rules regulating the extraction of resource units from a free pool) or as tradeable property (in which holders allocate the resources by making trades among themselves) or some combination of both. All that matters is which method is more efficient and produces more benefits for Internet users. Leave your religious beliefs behind. But after IPv4 exhaustion, common pool governance of v4 space breaks down completely and the best way to ensure efficient utilization of remaining v4 resources is to allow market-based transfers. These transfers should be made as flexible and easy as possible. There is probably no need for holding periods, although they don't seem to do a lot of harm as long as they are 1 year or less. Needs assessment is increasingly arbitrary and pointless in such an environment. I know needs-basis is another item of religious faith in some circles, but the idea that RIR staff can accurately assess "need" given inherent uncertainty about time horizons and technical development, is just wrong. Organizations should be allowed to buy as much of an asset as they think they need, and can afford, in order to advance their business interests. Let the price system sort out who really needs what. It should also be obvious that the market for these addresses should be global, not regional. Thus, I support proposed policy 2012-01, my only reservation being that the policy specifies that "Where the recipient is in another region, the conditions on the recipient as defined in the counterpart RIR's transfer policy at the time of the transfer will apply." In this blog post I raised some issues with that and hope that the authors of the policy would respond. http://www.internetgovernance.org/ Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org From chrish at consol.net Thu Apr 12 10:21:12 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (Chris) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:21:12 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4F869078.90006@consol.net> On 04/11/2012 10:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > The IP address space is not and never has been a commons. Not for those of us who actually understand the vocabulary of resource economics and know what the term "commons" means. > For IP addresses to be a "commons" they all would have to be available for use for anyone at any time; i.e., there would have to be no exclusive occupation of it. And of course that doesn't work technically, does it? IP address blocks have to be uniquely and exclusively assigned to specific users to function on the internet. Which means the address pool is not a commons - end of story. this is simply wrong. you do not know what you are talking about. i don't think there's more to say about it. maybe so much: i live in a place where commons have been a central and vital concept for society for hundreds of years, and following your frivolous statement it never could have existed. as an auxilliary measure i'd claim ownership of your ips. ah what the heck, 0/0 is mine. that's all so ridiculous - forgive me if i don't regard further discussion following this thread as sensible or worthwile. > Thus, I support proposed policy 2012-01, well then - bring it on to arin... ;) regards, Chris From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Thu Apr 12 10:54:06 2012 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:54:06 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <4F869078.90006@consol.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4F869078.90006@consol.net> Message-ID: <4F86982E.60909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Chris wrote: > On 04/11/2012 10:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>The IP address space is not and never has been a commons. Well, I am not convinced that the discussion at that level is appropriate or even helpful. But - (caveat: I am not a native (american) english speaker nor an economist!) the description of "The Commons" in the Wikipedia (to me) seems to support Chris' point: " There are a number of important aspects that can be used to describe true commons. The first is that the commons cannot be commodified ? if they are, they cease to be commons. The second aspect is that unlike private property, the commons is inclusive rather than exclusive ? its nature is to share ownership as widely, rather than as narrowly, as possible. " The 3rd one offered seems to be irrelevant here, as IP numbers don't decay or vanish, due to being used (or not) on the Internet. Btw, what *is* suggested to be a Commons is the Internet as an encompassing space or entity. My contribution here is not meant to be a statement in favour or against the proposed policy. FWIW, Wilfried > Not for those of us who actually understand the vocabulary of resource economics and know what the term "commons" means. >>For IP addresses to be a "commons" they all would have to be available for use for anyone at any time; i.e., there would have to be no exclusive occupation of it. And of course that doesn't work technically, does it? IP address blocks have to be uniquely and exclusively assigned to specific users to function on the internet. Which means the address pool is not a commons - end of story. > > > this is simply wrong. you do not know what you are talking about. > i don't think there's more to say about it. maybe so much: i live in a place where commons have been a central and vital concept for society for hundreds of years, and following your frivolous statement it never could have existed. > > as an auxilliary measure i'd claim ownership of your ips. ah what the heck, 0/0 is mine. > > that's all so ridiculous - forgive me if i don't regard further discussion following this thread as sensible or worthwile. > > >>Thus, I support proposed policy 2012-01, > > > well then - bring it on to arin... ;) > > regards, > > Chris From james.blessing at despres.co.uk Thu Apr 12 11:00:08 2012 From: james.blessing at despres.co.uk (James Blessing) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:00:08 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] In favor of 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 11 April 2012 21:04, Milton L Mueller wrote: > But after IPv4 exhaustion, common pool governance of v4 space breaks down completely and the best way to ensure > efficient utilization of remaining v4 resources is to allow market-based transfers. Why? Show a market where this is true... Surely the placing of a per unit value onto an item leads to a desire to acquire units where the scarcity of the that unit increases. Establishing an unfettered market is counter productive as the natural tendency is for those of wealth to acquire the resource and leads to governmental interference where there is a perceived "unfairness" in the distribution. I'm all for a inter-RIR transfer policy, just not this one J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476 From randy at psg.com Thu Apr 12 11:09:21 2012 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:09:21 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <4F86982E.60909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4F869078.90006@consol.net> <4F86982E.60909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: i believe mueller's definition of a commons to be formally correct. but is arguing about the term of any constructive use? randy From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Thu Apr 12 11:21:51 2012 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:21:51 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <4F86982E.60909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4F869078.90006@consol.net> <4F86982E.60909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20120412092151.GA10312@vacation.karoshi.com.> my working analogy is that IP addresses are roughly the same as spectrum. you can no more "own" 9870 Angstroms than you can "own" 127.0.80.42 all you get is right to use. /bill From gert at space.net Thu Apr 12 14:47:53 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:47:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4F869078.90006@consol.net> <4F86982E.60909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20120412124753.GZ84425@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 06:09:21PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > i believe mueller's definition of a commons to be formally correct. > but is arguing about the term of any constructive use? It's not overly important whether we paint IP addresses red or blue, as long as we agree what can be done with blocks of those. So I agree with you here :-) Folks, we know that transfer policies are a very emotional thing - we've been there in with our local transfer policy, and I think Remco still has scars to show. So maybe take a step back and ask yourself whether you want a religios debate (which will not go anywhere), or whether we can find a pragmatic solution together that takes reality into account. So - I think it's unavoidable to accept that transfers *will* and *do* happen (if "IP networks as such" cannot be transferred, people will just trade parts of their company that happen to "own" the network resources). So what we should focus on is - ensure that we know who has a legitimate claim to which network ("owns it") - ensure that this is properly documented in all involved RIR registries Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled 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 mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 12 15:55:50 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:55:50 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4F869078.90006@consol.net> <4F86982E.60909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2125BDC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > i believe mueller's definition of a commons to be formally correct. > but is arguing about the term of any constructive use? Maybe. If half the population discussing a proposal is hung up on a false, uninformed notion of what a commons is and opposes a proposal for that reason, we seem to have no choice but to clarify what the concept means. But I agree that the discussion can get sidetracked in endless ideological cruft. And probably will. From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 12 15:57:58 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:57:58 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <20120412124753.GZ84425@Space.Net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4F869078.90006@consol.net> <4F86982E.60909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <20120412124753.GZ84425@Space.Net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2125BF6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > So what we should focus on is > > - ensure that we know who has a legitimate claim to which network ("owns it") > - ensure that this is properly documented in all involved RIR registries Agreed. To which I would add: - ensure that transfers can take place globally not just regionally according to harmonized rules. From gert at space.net Thu Apr 12 16:04:13 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:04:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2125BF6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4F869078.90006@consol.net> <4F86982E.60909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <20120412124753.GZ84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2125BF6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20120412140413.GH84425@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 01:57:58PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > So what we should focus on is > > > > - ensure that we know who has a legitimate claim to which network ("owns it") > > - ensure that this is properly documented in all involved RIR registries > > Agreed. To which I would add: > - ensure that transfers can take place globally not just regionally according to harmonized rules. This was somewhat implicity by mentioning "all involved RIR registries" :-) Gert Doering -- APWG chairs -- have you enabled 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 Thu Apr 12 16:04:46 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:04:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4F869078.90006@consol.net> <4F86982E.60909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <20120412124753.GZ84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2125BF6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20120412140446.GI84425@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:03:26PM +0200, Roger J?rgensen wrote: > to complicated, let's keep it RIPE only right now, then we just add > another overlaying policy later that take care of that global part. There is no RIPE-only policy proposal on the table right now. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled 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 rogerj at gmail.com Thu Apr 12 16:03:26 2012 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roger_J=F8rgensen?=) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:03:26 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2125BF6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4F869078.90006@consol.net> <4F86982E.60909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <20120412124753.GZ84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2125BF6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> >> So what we should focus on is >> >> ?- ensure that we know who has a legitimate claim to which network ("owns it") >> ?- ensure that this is properly documented in all involved RIR registries > > Agreed. To which I would add: > ?- ensure that transfers can take place globally not just regionally according to harmonized rules. to complicated, let's keep it RIPE only right now, then we just add another overlaying policy later that take care of that global part. -- Roger Jorgensen? ? ? ? ?? | rogerj at gmail.com? ? ? ? ? | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no?? | roger at jorgensen.no From tbb at ines.ro Thu Apr 12 16:23:00 2012 From: tbb at ines.ro (Tiberiu Ungureanu) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:23:00 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] In support of 2012-01, and side questions. Message-ID: <1334240580.9316.10.camel@t-desk.ohio.opentransfer.com> Hello. First, I want to show support for 2012-01. Second, I read the treads regarding this proposal, and I've seen some opposition, but I don't understand the arguments of the opposition, so I would like the people who oppose to clarify their positions: - What are the dangers that we face if we approve this proposal? * Resources that are available in another region will be made available to RIPE members? Isn't that a good thing? * Resources currently assigned to a RIPE member will leave RIPE influence zone, the RIPE member will potentially get some cash that *maybe* will help that member spend money to deploy IPv6? Or maybe that member will take the money and run to the first casino and waste them all (but wouldn't that in the end help the economy?) * Resources that a RIPE member "sold" to an entity outside the RIPE region, instead of returning them to RIPE could have been used by another RIPE member that now needs them and doesn't have them available. This other RIPE member is now forced to use IPv6, because there's no IPv4 left. But isn't that what we all want? It is not my intention to feed the trolls, but I find 2012-01 very reasonable, and I don't understand the opposition to it. So I allow for the unlikely situation ( ;) ) where I may be wrong. Am I? -- Tiberiu Ungureanu ro.ines -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From slz at baycix.de Thu Apr 12 16:49:42 2012 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:49:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] In favor of 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FB39A15-ED33-44E2-B690-9A01ED4D0264@baycix.de> Hi, >> this is exactly the problem. this implies that the ip space is an asset of the >> seller, which it is not. it is a commons, and if it is sparse, as any one has the >> same right to it, it is to be redistributed according to need, fair and equally. > > The IP address space is not and never has been a commons. Not for those of us who actually understand the vocabulary of resource economics and know what the term "commons" means. > For IP addresses to be a "commons" they all would have to be available for use for anyone at any time; i.e., there would have to be no exclusive occupation of it. And of course that doesn't work technically, does it? IP address blocks have to be uniquely and exclusively assigned to specific users to function on the internet. Which means the address pool is not a commons - end of story. > > Because IP addresses are exclusively assigned, they can be governed either as common pool resources (in which a governance agency establishes rules regulating the extraction of resource units from a free pool) or as tradeable property (in which holders allocate the resources by making trades among themselves) or some combination of both. All that matters is which method is more efficient and produces more benefits for Internet users. Leave your religious beliefs behind. > > But after IPv4 exhaustion, common pool governance of v4 space breaks down completely and the best way to ensure efficient utilization of remaining v4 resources is to allow market-based transfers. These transfers should be made as flexible and easy as possible. There is probably no need for holding i actually have to agree to this mostly so far - at least theoretically speaking. Some others might hate me for that opinion, but it's just formally correct like that and as i already stated before - i believe there's no reason not to treat IPv4 resources as a "tradeable property". I checked with reality and it told me, the world the internet lives in is mostly a marked based one. But from here on you're pretty much wrong, or ignore some facts: > periods, although they don't seem to do a lot of harm as long as they are 1 year or less. Needs assessment is increasingly arbitrary and pointless in such an environment. I know needs-basis is another item of religious faith in some circles, but the idea that RIR staff can accurately assess "need" given inherent uncertainty about time horizons and technical development, is just wrong. Organizations should be allowed to buy as much of an asset as they think they need, and can afford, in order to advance their business interests. Let the price system sort out who really needs what. > The RIRs and the community have shown that they can manage needs based allocation/assignment of scarce goods like IPv4 addresses pretty well the last decade(s) or so. Why on earth should it be pointless now just because there is (more) money involved? You need to understand that, even if IPv4 resources might rather become a "tradeable property" than they are a "commons", it's anyways a "scarce property". If we assume our marked economy usually is some kind of "social market economy", then there usually is some regulation to prevent a monopoly or misuse. The easiest and least market intrusive way to prevent that is to just keep up with a needs assessment. IF there is proof that some entity really needs the resources/IPv4 addresses, well, let them pay money for it, and allow a "trade" with another entity who doesn't need their resources anymore. But don't allow company X to buy all available space just because they can with their billions, and let them prevent competitors from entering the market or expand their business, or just sell the stuff again for a higher price. ==> Once again: The intention of the proposal is fine, there will be some kind of IPv4 space market, legally or not. We better have a good, global policy for that scenario. BUT, i doubt that any proposal that wants to do away with the needs-based approach will stand a chance in hell to get pass the community. There are too many good reasons not to change that. > It should also be obvious that the market for these addresses should be global, not regional. > Correct again, no objections. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect From chrish at consol.net Thu Apr 12 17:04:44 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (Chris) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:04:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <20120412124753.GZ84425@Space.Net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4F869078.90006@consol.net> <4F86982E.60909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <20120412124753.GZ84425@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4F86EF0C.3020508@consol.net> hi! On 04/12/2012 02:47 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > It's not overly important whether we paint IP addresses red or blue, as > long as we agree what can be done with blocks of those. So I agree true. - ips cannot be owned - allocations are valid as long as the prerequisites are true, otherwise they are subject to be reevaluated and adapted. it seems like today there's need for this to be put into another special paragraph in the policy. while i tend not to accept a priori declaration of arguments as off-limits in a discussion, i think distribution (which includes transfers) of ips according to need is the natural primacy of *IRs. then again, i don't see that or why this is currently not possible for rirs. in case of a block of ips that is not needed by a rir, i'd assume that a transfer to another rir asking for space because it is needed there wouldn't be a problem irl. while i'm convinced this would currently be done in a sensible way anyway, formalizing this probably wouldn't hurt, too. the major issue here according to the goals of ip administration is certainly aggregation. currently the blocks allocated to rirs are /8 i believe... inter-rir, aggregation should certainly be observed closely, so a reasonable size for blocks to be transfered from one rir with such spare blocks to another rir in need of such a block should be chosen (like, /16?). regards, Chris From dburk at burkov.aha.ru Thu Apr 12 18:49:51 2012 From: dburk at burkov.aha.ru (Dmitry Burkov) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 20:49:51 +0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2125BDC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4F869078.90006@consol.net> <4F86982E.60909@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2125BDC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, sometimes I liked you ideas and your attempts to stress frozen situation. But sometimes you reminded me some pages from Russian history - like Russian February Revolution or Trotsky approach (please, remeber that in Western interpretation it means different that ours - Russian). Sorry - just a memories. Dima On Apr 12, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> i believe mueller's definition of a commons to be formally correct. >> but is arguing about the term of any constructive use? > > Maybe. > > If half the population discussing a proposal is hung up on a false, uninformed notion of what a commons is and opposes a proposal for that reason, we seem to have no choice but to clarify what the concept means. But I agree that the discussion can get sidetracked in endless ideological cruft. And probably will. > > > From erik at bais.name Thu Apr 12 19:50:46 2012 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:50:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> I don't agree with the current policy. Reasoning : As Gert already stated: companies will find ways around this anyway by selling parts of their companies / stocks which would have the IP?s otherwise. I already heard of a situation where an Asian based company opened a UK ltd just to become a RIPE LIR member in order to be able to apply for IP in our region. Bottom line is. People with a specific goal are cunning and more creative than what we allow or not in a specific policy. Especially if (a lot of) money is involved. However by releasing this policy, (semi)authorizing a market that would prolong IPv4 lifetime and further delay v6 deployment, would give the wrong signal to the public in my personal opinion. Any kind of transfer of unused space, should go back to the RIR and not end up with the highest bidder. The sooner people realize that v4 is soo 2000, the better for us all. Regards, Erik Bais From Tero.Toikkanen at nebula.fi Fri Apr 13 08:57:16 2012 From: Tero.Toikkanen at nebula.fi (Tero Toikkanen) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 06:57:16 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: > Any kind of transfer of unused space, should go back to the RIR and not end > up with the highest bidder. I agree. If we really feel we have the need to transfer IPv4 address space between RIRs, the transfers should happen between RIRs, not LIRs. I'm not so sure that is a good idea either... Also, we already have a policy for transferring address space within the RIPE-region. Why is this proposal trying to create a new policy instead of amending what we already have in place? Having drastically different rules for different kinds of transfers is confusing, resulting in something similar to IPv4 PI versus IPv6 PI. ____________________________________ Tero Toikkanen Nebula Oy From gert at space.net Fri Apr 13 10:27:13 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:27:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 06:57:16AM +0000, Tero Toikkanen wrote: > Also, we already have a policy for transferring address space within > the RIPE-region. "within", yes. > Why is this proposal trying to create a new policy instead of amending > what we already have in place? Because our current policy doesn't say anything about transfers outside of the RIPE region (plus, our current policy also needs work, but that's a different thread). Out-of-region transfers are (obviously) different because the rules of the corresponding RIR need to be taken into account. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled 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 cfriacas at fccn.pt Fri Apr 13 10:52:35 2012 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:52:35 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hello, I don't have a very strong opinion about this, but i think i'm on the opposing side to this proposal. I may be wrong, but i guess this community has some rules about returning resources to the RIR when they are not being used anymore. So, if there is a plan to "transfer" those resources to a (specific) 3rd party, it probably means they are not being used, so they should firstly be returned to our RIR... if current rules have any value. The notion/definition that numbering resources are not an asset is present in several RIPE documents, correct? if this proposal is approved, imho some work needs to be done urgently to "ammend/remove" the documentation phrases where that definition is expressed/implied... Regards, Carlos Fria?as On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 06:57:16AM +0000, Tero Toikkanen wrote: >> Also, we already have a policy for transferring address space within >> the RIPE-region. > > "within", yes. > >> Why is this proposal trying to create a new policy instead of amending >> what we already have in place? > > Because our current policy doesn't say anything about transfers outside > of the RIPE region (plus, our current policy also needs work, but that's > a different thread). > > Out-of-region transfers are (obviously) different because the rules of > the corresponding RIR need to be taken into account. > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > have you enabled 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 Tero.Toikkanen at nebula.fi Fri Apr 13 11:14:55 2012 From: Tero.Toikkanen at nebula.fi (Tero Toikkanen) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:14:55 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> Message-ID: > Because our current policy doesn't say anything about transfers outside of > the RIPE region (plus, our current policy also needs work, but that's a > different thread). > > Out-of-region transfers are (obviously) different because the rules of the > corresponding RIR need to be taken into account. I was merely questioning the rationale of having a completely separate transfer policy for each case, in stead of just one covering all cases. In that case we could have general conditions covering all cases and more detailed provisions for individual transfer types. Right now the conditions presented in the proposal seem to be lacking in many perspectives, as has already been noted on this discussion. I also know that the current intra-RIR transfer policy is embedded in the more general allocation and assignment policy, so in that sense it seems like a good idea to make a separate policy and not tamper with existing material. Should the community feel that a policy for inter-RIR transfers is needed, I urge to keep policy coherency in mind when considering conditions. Right now I feel that the suggested conditions for inter-RIR transfers differ too much from conditions already in place for intra-RIR transfers. For example, in case of intra-RIR transfers, the need for address space is evaluated by RIPE, which (according to the proposal) would not be the case with inter-RIR transfers (the wording of condition 2. is quite vague). ____________________________________ Tero Toikkanen Nebula Oy From gert at space.net Fri Apr 13 11:27:02 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:27:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20120413092702.GP84425@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 09:14:55AM +0000, Tero Toikkanen wrote: > I was merely questioning the rationale of having a completely > separate transfer policy for each case, in stead of just one covering > all cases. In that case we could have general conditions covering > all cases and more detailed provisions for individual transfer > types. Right now the conditions presented in the proposal seem to > be lacking in many perspectives, as has already been noted on this > discussion. Yes, this is a good point, and a little bird told me that we'll see something to address this presented next week at the AP meeting :-) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled 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 k13 at nikhef.nl Fri Apr 13 13:33:55 2012 From: k13 at nikhef.nl (Rob Blokzijl) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:33:55 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, on the agenda for the Adress Policy WG next week is a presentation of a document titled "IPv4 Maintenance Policy", attached to this mail. This is a document that is slightly different from or usual type of policy documents: it is an attempt to consolidate those policies and practices that will still be relevant after the depletion of the IPv4 free pool. The aim is to have a consistent and complete collection of all things relevant to IPv4 for the years to come. Read, digest, enjoy - and discuss :-) Best regards, Rob Blokzijl -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IPv4 Maintenance Policy_v10.2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 90277 bytes Desc: URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Fri Apr 13 14:03:40 2012 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:03:40 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] returning v4 resources in a post v4 world In-Reply-To: References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> Message-ID: <433A2158-F42D-4529-9FF5-F23C9F83DAD2@rfc1035.com> On 13 Apr 2012, at 09:52, Carlos Friacas wrote: > I may be wrong, but i guess this community has some rules about > returning resources to the RIR when they are not being used anymore. > So, if there is a plan to "transfer" those resources to a (specific) > 3rd party, it probably means they are not being used, so they should > firstly be returned to our RIR... if current rules have any value. Carlos, this is true in an abstract, academic sense. However it won't apply in the real world. For one thing, it doesn't necessarily follow that those addresses are not used: the donor (seller) just has no need for them any more. A "business reorganisation" could mean those addresses and the customers using them move to a new entity. Transfers between LIRs can already be gamed within the existing policies. Expect to see more of this once v4 has run out. So please, let's not kid ourselves that blocks of "unused" IPv4 addresses will always be returned to the RIR who issued them. That will be even less likely when those blocks are perceived to have significant value once the RIRs have no more v4 resources. IMO it's far more important that the RIRs keep track of who's got which blocks of addresses and maintain an accurate, timely database of that info. An address policy which reflects that will be better than one which doesn't. From chrish at consol.net Fri Apr 13 14:19:54 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (Chris) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:19:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] returning v4 resources in a post v4 world In-Reply-To: <433A2158-F42D-4529-9FF5-F23C9F83DAD2@rfc1035.com> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <433A2158-F42D-4529-9FF5-F23C9F83DAD2@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <4F8819EA.3070004@consol.net> On 04/13/2012 02:03 PM, Jim Reid wrote: > Transfers between LIRs can already be gamed within the existing policies. imho no. - ips cannot be owned - allocation is tied to need - transfers are treated identical to allocations => transfers between lirs are subject to the same prerequisites as allocations. transfers can be gamed no more or less than allocations. this is the formal situation. if sbdy is trying to or letting sbdy get through with some sort of cheat, that's a totally different problem... regards, Chris From jim at rfc1035.com Fri Apr 13 14:36:05 2012 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:36:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] returning v4 resources in a post v4 world In-Reply-To: <4F8819EA.3070004@consol.net> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <433A2158-F42D-4529-9FF5-F23C9F83DAD2@rfc1035.com> <4F8819EA.3070004@consol.net> Message-ID: On 13 Apr 2012, at 13:19, Chris wrote: > transfers between lirs are subject to the same prerequisites as > allocations. Yes. I have read the policy. However there are transfers and there are transfers. A formal transfer according to the policy is of course bound by those needs-based prerequisites. Address blocks sometimes need to be moved between LIRs without invoking that: no back-room deals or cheating either. You just don't call those moves a transfer, even though that's the end result. Suppose a hypothetical IXP sells off its web hosting business. It keeps some IP addresses for itself and the rest go with the web hosting. The web customers can't be renumbered but they move to another company which might or might not be an existing LIR in the same service region. What sort of "needs-based address transfer" is that? This is a rhetorical question BTW. From boggits at gmail.com Fri Apr 13 14:04:37 2012 From: boggits at gmail.com (boggits) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:04:37 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 13 April 2012 12:33, Rob Blokzijl wrote: > ? The aim is to have a consistent and complete collection of all things > ? relevant to IPv4 for the years to come. Might it be an idea for this document to reference the polices that create each of the individual "elements" so that someone can use it as a reference to find the full wording of the policy that applies? J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476 From chrish at consol.net Fri Apr 13 15:45:18 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (Chris) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:45:18 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] returning v4 resources in a post v4 world In-Reply-To: References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <433A2158-F42D-4529-9FF5-F23C9F83DAD2@rfc1035.com> <4F8819EA.3070004@consol.net> Message-ID: <4F882DEE.2060505@consol.net> On 04/13/2012 02:36 PM, Jim Reid wrote: > Yes. I have read the policy. However there are transfers and there are transfers. A formal transfer according to the policy is of course bound by those needs-based prerequisites. Address blocks sometimes need to be moved between LIRs without invoking that: no back-room deals or cheating either. You just don't call those moves a transfer, even though that's the end result. i'm convinced we both agree that we are not talking about simple announcements of one lir's pa by another lir's as. the rest, which i think you are actually referring to, is very well known to me, too. and i can tell you the examples coming to my mind are totally solvable by sticking to the policy, you just have to mean it (e.g. i personally never bothered as long as ip space wasn't really close to depletion). some closer research into this even showed that by just dealing with the very worst cases, the 'exhausted'-state would just vanish - and chances are, for a long time (i guess at least 5 years. i think if played right, actually it had the potential to kind of solve the 'hard' depletion issue entirely, while at the same time pushing v6). > Suppose a hypothetical IXP you just HAD to pick IXPs here, hm? ;) > sells off its web hosting business. It keeps some IP addresses for itself and the rest go with the web hosting. The web customers can't be renumbered but they move to another company which might or might not be an existing LIR in the same service region. What sort of "needs-based address transfer" is that? This is a rhetorical question BTW. too bad, because i'll answer that anyway: first of all, just a little reminder: one of the first things every lir is informed about is that it might have to renumber in some cases. period. the ixp sells off its web hosting business: -> it stays lir -> its originally demonstrated need for ips isn't valid anymore -> its right towards ip space is reduced to what its allocation would be according to its current need another lir buys the webhosting business: -> it doesn't buy any ip-addresses -> its needs for ip space are now probably higher than the need demonstrated for its old allocation -> in this case it is eligible for further allocation - probably quite the size of what the ixp selling the web hosting business 'lost' -> from my experience i'd assume the folks at ncc have no problem at all to handle the allocation-recovery and allocation-enlargement in the least-invasive way, i.e. moving the space returned by the ixp to the webhoster with maximum congruity as aggregation allows -> in case an additional block is needed to be allocated to the webhoster (which is rather unlikely but possible), this is also done. in this case the webhoster would have to renumber a small part of the webhosting-farm. all this might be done not by returning/reallocation, but by transfer. same thing, less "ripe" strings in the text. and that's simply the way it works if you'd stick to the current situation, and _don't_ cheat or look the other way sometimes or change the fundamental policy of "ips cannot be owned". => the most interesting thing here is: the ip situation is identical to the "ok now we regard ips as asset and let people sell and buy them" case. if the space is sold, we have the same - identical - problem, we have to deal with aggregation and possibly renumbering in the same way. the only difference is that theoretically someone could simply buy up all the ip space he wants, maybe just letting it rot or abusing it in whatever way, and others had no chance to get any. regards, Chris From tvest at eyeconomics.com Fri Apr 13 18:18:24 2012 From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (Tom Vest) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:18:24 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] On "commons" and "common pool resources" [ was "In favor of 2012-01"] In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212481B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <61149356-0959-44BB-A6A4-83454BF0D4CF@eyeconomics.com> On Apr 11, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> this is exactly the problem. this implies that the ip space is an asset of the >> seller, which it is not. it is a commons, and if it is sparse, as any one has the >> same right to it, it is to be redistributed according to need, fair and equally. > > The IP address space is not and never has been a commons. Not for those of us who actually understand the vocabulary of resource economics and know what the term "commons" means. > For IP addresses to be a "commons" they all would have to be available for use for anyone at any time; i.e., there would have to be no exclusive occupation of it. And of course that doesn't work technically, does it? IP address blocks have to be uniquely and exclusively assigned to specific users to function on the internet. Which means the address pool is not a commons - end of story. Hi Milton, I appreciate that you're trying to educate the address policy community about an field of academic inquiry that some members may not be familiar with, but in your haste to scold I think you may have added more to confusion than clarity. If the goal was to inform, it probably would have made more sense to start out by highlighting the fact that Chris' claim was perfectly sensible with respect to "common pool resources" even if it might be somewhat inapt when describing the abstract class "commons" -- instead of just obliquely acknowledging that fact later, as you do below. Regardless, as Elinor Ostron said in her Annual IEA Hayek Memorial Lecture two weeks ago, there are many different kinds of "commons," just as there are many different kinds of markets and "command and control" mechanisms. > Because IP addresses are exclusively assigned, they can be governed either as common pool resources (in which a governance agency establishes rules regulating the extraction of resource units from a free pool) or as tradeable property (in which holders allocate the resources by making trades among themselves) or some combination of both. All that matters is which method is more efficient and produces more benefits for Internet users. For those who would like to learn more about the analytical framework that Milton is using here, I would recommend his very interesting 2007 paper, "Property and Commons in Internet Governance." [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102] FWIW, I think that this claim about governance alternatives is perfectly reasonable -- at least for the kind of discrete, self-contained, non-interactive common pool resources that scholars like Garret Hardin and Elinor Ostrum have written about so extensively -- e.g., grazing lands, forests, fisheries, and other things that are composed of divisible elements which, once fractional portions have been separated and possessed by individual private parties, both cease to be dependent for 100% of their value on all of the other fractional elements of that original common pool, and also cease to represent a potential threat to the value of all of the fractional portions that are held by *other* private parties. However, when it comes to the kind of "intrinsically interactive" or "network-dependent" common pool resources that *do* continue to be sensitively dependent, for better or worse, on their "sibling" resources even *after* they have been withdrawn from the common pool and are privately controlled (or "owned"), there really is no clear alternative. Granted, common pool resources of this particular type are rare, but IP addresses are not the first or the only resource of this kind. The common pool resource that we typically call "money," and in particular the ability of private parties to unilaterally impact that pool by creating or withdrawing "credit" is another. History has clearly demonstrated that treating common pool resources of this rather unusual kind as if they were a uncoordinated, freely tradable resource is not a very good idea; every past effort to replace coordination mechanisms for this kind of resource with pure voluntary market mechanisms has ended in failure, not infrequently accompanied by widespread immiseration. > Leave your religious beliefs behind. Yellow card. Do we really want to go down this path again Milton? May I suggest that you henceforth dispense with the old ideological warfare rhetoric, so that I don't have to help clarify the context? > But after IPv4 exhaustion, common pool governance of v4 space breaks down completely and the best way to ensure efficient utilization of remaining v4 resources is to allow market-based transfers. The first claim is speculative, and the second is just argument by assertion. > These transfers should be made as flexible and easy as possible. There is probably no need for holding periods, although they don't seem to do a lot of harm as long as they are 1 year or less. Needs assessment is increasingly arbitrary and pointless in such an environment. I know needs-basis is another item of religious faith in some circles, Second yellow card. > but the idea that RIR staff can accurately assess "need" given inherent uncertainty about time horizons and technical development, is just wrong. Organizations should be allowed to buy as much of an asset as they think they need, and can afford, in order to advance their business interests. Let the price system sort out who really needs what. While the price system is perhaps the best possible mechanism for allocating almost everything (other than network-dependent common pool resources), under certain circumstances it seems to work quite badly. Markets work great when they look like neutral auctions, where every bidder knows exactly what they're bidding for, all buyers and sellers have access to the same information about past and present prices, and no single party or group has enough market power to distort aggregate prices. That said, in markets where pricing information is never publicly disclosed and thus never available to anyone even in average/aggregate form, it's not even clear to me that talking about the "price mechanism" -- much less praising it as infallible -- makes sense. And matters are even worse in cases where the market that's hidden within such a "cloud of pricing unknowability" is dedicated to the trading of functional resources whose future function/value will continue to be sensitive to the future choices and non-trading behavior of the original seller (as well as every other potential sell-side market participant). Many of us are still suffering in one way or another from the damage caused by the implosion of the last market like this (i.e., for CDOs, CDSes, and other "interactive" synthetic financial instruments) -- do we really want to see our industry follow that path? FWIW, If there is a consensus that some kind of voluntary resource redistribution mechanism(s) are needed, and that they should provide the means to move resources between parties that are associated with different registries, then I believe that there may be a great deal to be learned from past academic research on resource economics, and from scholars like Milton, and Elinor Ostrom, and many others. IMO it would be prudent to consider a broad range perspectives on how different kinds of common pool resources respond to different kinds of governance regime modifications before contemplating any policy changes that may be difficult or impossible to reconsider after the fact. Speaking for myself alone, TV From mueller at syr.edu Sat Apr 14 01:52:29 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:52:29 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > I was merely questioning the rationale of having a completely separate > transfer policy for each case, instead of just one covering all cases. [Milton L Mueller] The problem is that you have 5 different RIRs and (potentially) one global market. > In that case we could have general conditions covering all cases and [Milton L Mueller] which "we" are you talking about? The European "we", American we....? > I also know that the current intra-RIR transfer policy is embedded in > the more general allocation and assignment policy, so in that sense it > seems like a good idea to make a separate policy and not tamper with > existing material. Should the community feel that a policy for inter-RIR > transfers is needed, I urge to keep policy coherency in mind when > considering conditions. Right now I feel that the suggested conditions > for inter-RIR transfers differ too much from conditions already in place > for intra-RIR transfers. For example, in case of intra-RIR transfers, [Milton L Mueller] But that is precisely the crux of the problem we are facing. If you think it's hard to get a single coherent policy through one RIR/state, trying getting one through 5, especially when the incentives of the members of the different territorial communities diverge. Territorially exclusive RIRs are very similar in structure and incentives to territorially sovereign states, and defining a single, uniform policy for inter-RIR transfers is very much like negotiating a trade treaty. In short, I think a global policy should completely supplant the regional/territorial policy. > the need for address space is evaluated by RIPE, which (according to the > proposal) would not be the case with inter-RIR transfers (the wording of > condition 2. is quite vague). [Milton L Mueller] If you think the global policy should try to conform to the local ones, you've got it backwards. It is the opposite that needs to occur. From james.blessing at despres.co.uk Sat Apr 14 12:05:28 2012 From: james.blessing at despres.co.uk (James Blessing) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:05:28 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 14 April 2012 00:52, Milton L Mueller wrote: > [Milton L Mueller] But that is precisely the crux of the problem we are facing. If you think it's hard to get a single coherent > policy through one RIR/state, trying getting one through 5, especially when the incentives of the members of the different > territorial communities diverge. > Territorially exclusive RIRs are very similar in structure and incentives to territorially sovereign states, and defining a single, > uniform policy for inter-RIR transfers is very much like negotiating a trade treaty. > > In short, I think a global policy should completely supplant the regional/territorial policy. ... but what required is not a single policy globally but rather 5 (actually you would technically need more for the NIR that exist) policies that interoperate. How they do this depends on the RIRs to decide for themselves: 1. Afrinic - "We do not support inter RIR transfers" 2. ARIN - "We support transfers to RIRs where there is a policy that exists to support the reverse" 3. RIPE - "We've not decided so until then they are not supported" etc All these policies are interoperable, its only where they don't mesh that there is a problem. RIPE needs a policy (even if the policy is "we don't support this") and then other regions can get their policy to match up, I hope that the policy that is about to be released to this list (with other authors) can solve this problem. J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476 From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Sat Apr 14 13:10:14 2012 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:10:14 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:52:29PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > I was merely questioning the rationale of having a completely separate > > transfer policy for each case, instead of just one covering all cases. > [Milton L Mueller] > > The problem is that you have 5 different RIRs and (potentially) one global market. kind of like spectrum. /bill From jim at rfc1035.com Sat Apr 14 13:14:50 2012 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:14:50 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] a global policy on address transfers In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 14 Apr 2012, at 00:52, Milton L Mueller wrote: > In short, I think a global policy should completely supplant the > regional/territorial policy. Feel free to propose such a policy. This would be much more productive than discussing academic theories on how best to deal with this issue. For some definition of "best". Where and who would develop this global policy? From gert at space.net Sat Apr 14 14:38:26 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:38:26 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com.> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> Hi, On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:10:14AM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > The problem is that you have 5 different RIRs and (potentially) one global market. > > kind of like spectrum. Not at all, given that you can't just use a spectrum licensed in the US in Europe. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled 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 bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Sat Apr 14 16:39:27 2012 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:39:27 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 02:38:26PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:10:14AM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > The problem is that you have 5 different RIRs and (potentially) one global market. > > > > kind of like spectrum. > > Not at all, given that you can't just use a spectrum licensed in the US > in Europe. actually, in some cases you can. (my radio works just fine in Europe) in other cases, its just like NAT.. :) if you can spare some cycles, its worth a look at the World Radio Congress. Global coordination of a "commons" that is done on regional and national basis. They have solved lots of the problems the RIRs are contemplating now. That said, its not identical but the parallels are many and close. Twould be a shame to ignore their work just because some take an NIH view of things... NIH - Not Invented Here. /bill > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > have you enabled 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 jcurran at arin.net Sat Apr 14 18:43:09 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:43:09 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) In-Reply-To: <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> Message-ID: <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> On Apr 14, 2012, at 10:39 AM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > Global coordination of a "commons" that is done on regional and national basis. As has been noted, there already is a successfully working process for submission of global policies in the Internet number registry system In fact, I pointed that fact out specifically to Milton the other day - Whether one first seeks regional policies, gains experiences and awareness of the issues and then seeks consensus on a global policy, or one simply goes for the global policy from the beginning is a matter of personal preference. If there are lessons in global process to be learned from other bodies, then I'd love to hear of them, but such seems independent to the consideration of draft policies already underway in the regions under existing processes. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Sat Apr 14 19:17:42 2012 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:17:42 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) In-Reply-To: <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <20120414171742.GE3671@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 04:43:09PM +0000, John Curran wrote: > On Apr 14, 2012, at 10:39 AM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > Global coordination of a "commons" that is done on regional and national basis. > > If there are lessons in global process to be learned from other bodies, then > I'd love to hear of them, but such seems independent to the consideration of > draft policies already underway in the regions under existing processes. Didn't intend to derail processes, just suggesting that this is not untrodden ground. I for one, found that the WRC was a whole new experience in cooperative, global policy development. YMMV, /bill > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > From mueller at syr.edu Sun Apr 15 02:10:59 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 00:10:59 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) In-Reply-To: <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212701E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > As has been noted, there already is a successfully working process for > submission of global policies in the Internet number registry system In > fact, I pointed that fact out specifically to Milton the other day - > ip-address-blocks/#comment-1031> [Milton L Mueller] Yes, John and I have had many conversations about this. I will be putting together a workshop at the Baku IGF on precisely this topic. Why don't we use that opportunity to make it a real WORKshop and attempt to develop consensus around a global policy that could be submitted following the procedure John has outlined? Are you in John? How about a RIPE-NCC representative? Any takers? From jcurran at arin.net Sun Apr 15 03:36:18 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 01:36:18 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212701E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212701E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Apr 14, 2012, at 8:10 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > [Milton L Mueller] > > Yes, John and I have had many conversations about this. > > I will be putting together a workshop at the Baku IGF on precisely this topic. Why don't we use that opportunity to make it a real WORKshop and attempt to develop consensus around a global policy that could be submitted following the procedure John has outlined? Are you in John? > How about a RIPE-NCC representative? Any takers? Milton - My role in ARIN is to help the community to develop address policy, so I'm honored but must decline if the goal of the workshop is policy development. I would recommend getting those who would be directly affected by such policies to be involved in development, and best wishes on your workshop. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From randy at psg.com Sun Apr 15 04:17:46 2012 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 04:17:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) In-Reply-To: <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: > As has been noted, there already is a successfully working process for > submission of global policies in the Internet number registry system is this a feature or a bug? to some of us, who think the rirs should be more bookkeepers than regulators, your endlessly repeated statement of come make more frelling regulation under the rir umbrella is quite far from enticing. randy From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Apr 15 04:27:07 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 22:27:07 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212701E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212701E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> As has been noted, there already is a successfully working process for >> submission of global policies in the Internet number registry system In >> fact, I pointed that fact out specifically to Milton the other day - >> > ip-address-blocks/#comment-1031> > > [Milton L Mueller] > > Yes, John and I have had many conversations about this. > > I will be putting together a workshop at the Baku IGF on precisely this topic. Why don't we use that opportunity to make it a real WORKshop and attempt to develop consensus around a global policy that could be submitted so you want to develop a policy proposal in Forum A which can only be decided upon in Fora B, C, D, E and F?? As John has indicated, it wouldn't be appropriate for RIR staff to represent their respective community's position since in some cases they don't know what it would be unless a proposal is put in front of their community, and it is not the role of the RIR staff to make global policy. You would have more success (I think) if you used the argument "we should all run out at the same time" to push for a global transfer policy. I don't think an appeal to free market purism will win many folk, at least that is my sense from my experience as a co-chair of the AfriNIC PDWG. We rejected a free market based proposal less than a year ago. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel following the procedure John has outlined? Are you in John? > How about a RIPE-NCC representative? Any takers? > > > From scottleibrand at gmail.com Sun Apr 15 04:34:41 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:34:41 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) In-Reply-To: References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <500E061E-DA69-4C63-9558-59D7B83E0813@gmail.com> Personally, I don't think we need global policy to allow for the transfer of IPv4 number resources between organizations in different RIRs' service regions. The policies recently adopted in APNIC and ARIN, which set conditions under which such transfers are allowed, will likely prove sufficient IMO. If organizations in the RIPE, LACNIC, or AfriNIC region would like to allow such transfers with organizations in the APNIC and ARIN regions, they are welcome to propose similar policy in their regions. I have no particular opposition to trying to put together a global policy along the lines proposed, but I don't think it's the most effective way to accomplish what will likely be needed. IMO there are enough differences in the different regions' situations that coordinating regional policies between only those regions that wish to engage in interregional transfers is likely to be much easier to achieve. Scott On Apr 14, 2012, at 7:17 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> As has been noted, there already is a successfully working process for >> submission of global policies in the Internet number registry system > > is this a feature or a bug? to some of us, who think the rirs should be > more bookkeepers than regulators, your endlessly repeated statement of > come make more frelling regulation under the rir umbrella is quite far > from enticing. > > randy > From jcurran at arin.net Sun Apr 15 04:42:29 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 02:42:29 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) In-Reply-To: References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <7DB02DDD-79C2-46E4-A711-A29F397DEEDB@arin.net> On Apr 14, 2012, at 10:17 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> As has been noted, there already is a successfully working process for >> submission of global policies in the Internet number registry system > > is this a feature or a bug? to some of us, who think the rirs should be > more bookkeepers than regulators, your endlessly repeated statement of > come make more frelling regulation under the rir umbrella is quite far > from enticing. Randy - I'm not advocating for any policy; Milton said he believes we need a globally harmonized IPv4 trading policy, one that imposes uniform conditions on all buyers and sellers in all regions. I was simply noting that there's nothing that prevents those who want such a policy from working on it in either regional or global fora, but in that in the meantime it appears there are already existing draft policies in the RIPE region to be considered. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From randy at psg.com Sun Apr 15 04:48:44 2012 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 04:48:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) In-Reply-To: <7DB02DDD-79C2-46E4-A711-A29F397DEEDB@arin.net> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> <7DB02DDD-79C2-46E4-A711-A29F397DEEDB@arin.net> Message-ID: john, in the most polite terms, you told mueller to foad. [truth be told, i have done so less politely in the past.] but there are many mechanisms which would allow reasonable ip address market(s), and there are fora other than the self-annointed regulatory rirs in which they might be built. perhaps if the rirs sat lower on their horses it would reduce the likelihood of becoming the fora and then the regulator(s). randy From jcurran at arin.net Sun Apr 15 05:01:08 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 03:01:08 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) In-Reply-To: References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> <7DB02DDD-79C2-46E4-A711-A29F397DEEDB@arin.net> Message-ID: On Apr 14, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > john, in the most polite terms, you told mueller to foad. [truth be > told, i have done so less politely in the past.] but there are many > mechanisms which would allow reasonable ip address market(s), and there > are fora other than the self-annointed regulatory rirs in which they > might be built. perhaps if the rirs sat lower on their horses it would > reduce the likelihood of becoming the fora and > then the regulator(s). Randy - I think I told Milton that I can't sit in workshops whose goal is to develop policies, but that he's welcome to get folks who do want certain policy changes to get together whereever they want to draft it. That can be in any forum they want to work in, and then into the regional or global policy development process as desired, but in any event, this region has an existing draft policy to consider. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From fw at deneb.enyo.de Sun Apr 15 18:15:08 2012 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:15:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com.> (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com's message of "Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:39:27 +0000") References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com.> Message-ID: <87obqtt1ir.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> [spectrum regulation] > They have solved lots of the problems the RIRs are contemplating now. I'm not sure if it's instructive. There are a few odd things about spectrum allocations: There's no global uniqueness requirement. Not even the frequency ranges for the next-layer protocols are standardized globally. You have to throw away devices when the allocation changes (or at least disable the RF interface). With such possibilities at hand, the solution space is somewhat different. From nick at inex.ie Sun Apr 15 18:56:29 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:56:29 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F8AFDBD.8030203@inex.ie> On 13/04/2012 12:33, Rob Blokzijl wrote: > This is a document that is slightly different from or usual type of > policy documents: it is an attempt to consolidate those policies and > practices that will still be relevant after the depletion of the IPv4 > free pool. > > The aim is to have a consistent and complete collection of all things > relevant to IPv4 for the years to come. Rob, I think the idea of a policy summary document is good; I agree with James Blessing's suggestion that it might be better to institute it as a set of pointers to existing documentation rather than repeating text from other documents. Also it should be made clear that this is a summary rather than a statement of policy in itself, so that we do not end up with potential discrepancies due to multiple documents making statements on the same issues. I.e. we should strive towards policy atomicity. Nick From mueller at syr.edu Sun Apr 15 22:03:50 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:03:50 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) In-Reply-To: References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212701E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212726B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Three in a row: three consecutive, mutually reinforcing indications of bad faith. John Curran: "eek! I can't participate in policy development." Well, sure you can at the IGF, and besides it isn't really "policy development" of the sort you are pretending to be afraid of. Everyone knows that IGF is a non-binding discussion forum and its purpose, if it has a purpose at all, is to do precisely the kind of thing I am proposing - namely, bring multiple stakeholders together in a safe, non-negotiating atmosphere to see where cooperation can move forward in other forums. Are you saying that it is ok for NRO people to do this among themselves, but not out in the open in an inclusive way? Please reconsider. Scott Leibrand: "we shouldn't have a global policy because of 'differences in the different regions' situations...'" In other words (to translate from the original American), "my region has a self-interest in creating trade barriers." Yeah, I know that, Scott, that's my point. And your second point seems to boil down to this: those of us currently running RIRs feel more comfortable doing bilateral deals with our buddies in other RIRs. Yeah, I know that, Scott, that's my point. So you don't think there's anything wrong with that? So you don't want to let anyone else in the game? Please reconsider. McTim: "so you want to develop a policy proposal in Forum A which can only be decided upon in Fora B, C, D, E and F??". Yes, duh, that's what the IGF is for. What is so odd and difficult about well-intentioned people meeting at the IGF, finding out what kind of a proposal(s) could be on the table, debating their merits and demerits, and agreeing to take what is agreeable into those Fora in a coordinated way?. Can you tell me again why you fear that? Let's lay this out even clearer for all to see: Any time someone expresses dissatisfaction with current RIR approaches to address policy, out comes the broken record: "make a policy proposal and put it before the RIRs." And as soon as someone starts to do that, and asks you to get serious about cooperating with them, you come up with a dozen lame excuses to tell them, as Randy colorfully put it, to "foad" The workshop will happen. There will be a global proposal. You CAN make it fail and you probably will. But in the not-so-long run, that could end up being a major defeat for you, not me and the others you think you are fending off. A lot of people are starting to watch this. > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of McTim > Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 10:27 PM > To: RIPE Address Policy Working Group > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > >> As has been noted, there already is a successfully working process > >> for submission of global policies in the Internet number registry > >> system In fact, I pointed that fact out specifically to Milton the > >> other day - > >> >> - > >> ip-address-blocks/#comment-1031> > > > > [Milton L Mueller] > > > > Yes, John and I have had many conversations about this. > > > > I will be putting together a workshop at the Baku IGF on precisely > > this topic. Why don't we use that opportunity to make it a real > > WORKshop and attempt to develop consensus around a global policy that > > could be submitted > > so you want to develop a policy proposal in Forum A which can only be > decided upon in Fora B, C, D, E and F?? > > As John has indicated, it wouldn't be appropriate for RIR staff to > represent their respective community's position since in some cases they > don't know what it would be unless a proposal is put in front of their > community, and it is not the role of the RIR staff to make global > policy. > > You would have more success (I think) if you used the argument "we > should all run out at the same time" to push for a global transfer > policy. I don't think an appeal to free market purism will win many > folk, at least that is my sense from my experience as a co-chair of the > AfriNIC PDWG. We rejected a free market based proposal less than a year > ago. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > > > > > > > > > > following the procedure John has outlined? Are you in John? > > How about a RIPE-NCC representative? Any takers? > > > > > > From gert at space.net Sun Apr 15 22:09:09 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 22:09:09 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: <4F8AFDBD.8030203@inex.ie> References: <4F8AFDBD.8030203@inex.ie> Message-ID: <20120415200909.GG37149@Space.Net> HI, On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 05:56:29PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > I think the idea of a policy summary document is good; I agree with James > Blessing's suggestion that it might be better to institute it as a set of > pointers to existing documentation rather than repeating text from other > documents. Also it should be made clear that this is a summary rather than > a statement of policy in itself, so that we do not end up with potential > discrepancies due to multiple documents making statements on the same > issues. I.e. we should strive towards policy atomicity. As far as I understand, this document is to *replace* the existing IPv4 policy documents. Eventually, with a formal PDP, after the initial round(s) of discussion and improvement. So there wouldn't be anything else to point to. Looking forward to a lively discussion on Thursday :-) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled 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 jcurran at arin.net Sun Apr 15 22:42:06 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:42:06 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212726B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212701E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212726B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Apr 15, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Three in a row: three consecutive, mutually reinforcing indications of bad faith. > > John Curran: "eek! I can't participate in policy development." Well, sure you can at the IGF, and besides it isn't really "policy development" of the sort you are pretending to be afraid of. Everyone knows that IGF is a non-binding discussion forum and its purpose, if it has a purpose at all, is to do precisely the kind of thing I am proposing - namely, bring multiple stakeholders together in a safe, non-negotiating atmosphere to see where cooperation can move forward in other forums. Are you saying that it is ok for NRO people to do this among themselves, but not out in the open in an inclusive way? Please reconsider. Milton - I fully recognize that the IGF forum allows open participation, but in the case of ARIN it's very clear that registry staff are not to participate in policy development. I assure you that a workshop for "finding out what kind of a proposal(s) could be on the table, debating their merits and demerits, and agreeing to take what is agreeable into those Fora in a coordinated way" is definitely number resource policy development. > Let's lay this out even clearer for all to see: > > Any time someone expresses dissatisfaction with current RIR approaches to address policy, out comes the broken record: "make a policy proposal and put it before the RIRs." And as soon as someone starts to do that, and asks you to get serious about cooperating with them, you come up with a dozen lame excuses to tell them, as Randy colorfully put it, to "foad" Do not misrepresent my response as contrary to any workshop you wish to have... it is not. My request is simply that you please, please try to involve some of folks who are actually affected by these policies in your discussion, in whatever forum you choose. It is those affected by these policies that should be involved in their formation, and that is the users of Internet number resources globally. > The workshop will happen. There will be a global proposal. That's wonderful, and as I noted on multiple occasions, if you do need any assistance with the global policy process, I?d recommend contacting one of the Address Support Organization (ASO) Advisory Council members or Chair for assistance. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Sun Apr 15 22:43:53 2012 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 22:43:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: <20120415200909.GG37149@Space.Net> References: <4F8AFDBD.8030203@inex.ie> <20120415200909.GG37149@Space.Net> Message-ID: <47225EAC-6342-48EF-8389-CC0366940DF2@ucd.ie> On 15 Apr 2012, at 22:09, Gert Doering wrote: > Looking forward to a lively discussion on Thursday :-) Indeed! I expect to start the ball rolling on Wednesday, with a discussion of services for legacy resource holders. As I currently see things, legacy resources don't need address policy work, and so should be out of scope for APWG. Services for legacy resource holders do need attention and seem to me to fall naturally within the scope of the NCC Services WG. My slides have to be checked by my co-authors before I can place them on the meeting web site. I'll do this as soon as possible. /Niall From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Apr 15 22:45:00 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:45:00 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212726B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212701E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212726B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Three in a row: three consecutive, mutually reinforcing indications of bad faith I don't see how any of those statements to be an indication of bad faith in anyway. > > John Curran: "eek! I can't participate in policy development." Well, sure you can at the IGF, and besides it isn't really "policy development" of the sort you are pretending to be afraid of. Everyone knows that IGF is a non-binding discussion forum and its purpose, if it has a purpose at all, is to do precisely the kind of thing I am proposing - namely, bring multiple stakeholders together in a safe, non-negotiating atmosphere to see where cooperation can move forward in other forums. Are you saying that it is ok for NRO people to do this among themselves, but not out in the open in an inclusive way? Please reconsider. > > Scott Leibrand: "we shouldn't have a global policy because of 'differences in the different regions' situations...'" In other words (to translate from the original American), "my region has a self-interest in creating trade barriers." Yeah, I know that, Scott, that's my point. And your second point seems to boil down to this: those of us currently running RIRs feel more comfortable doing bilateral deals with our buddies in other RIRs. Yeah, I know that, Scott, that's my point. So you don't think there's anything wrong with that? So you don't want to let anyone else in the game? Please reconsider. > > McTim: "so you want to develop a policy proposal in Forum A which can only be decided upon in Fora B, C, D, E and F??". Yes, duh, that's what the IGF is for. What is so odd and difficult about well-intentioned people meeting at the IGF, finding out what kind of a proposal(s) could be on the table, debating their merits and demerits, and agreeing to take what is agreeable into those Fora in a coordinated way?. Can you tell me again why you fear that? To be clear, I don't fear it at all, was merely offering you political advice on how best to approach the RIR communities with a proposal. > > Let's lay this out even clearer for all to see: > > Any time someone expresses dissatisfaction with current RIR approaches to address policy, out comes the broken record: "make a policy proposal and put it before the RIRs." And as soon as someone starts to do that, and asks you to get serious about cooperating with them, you come up with a dozen lame excuses to tell them, as Randy colorfully put it, to "foad" Milton, just because you don't get what you want from the process, doesn't mean the process doesn't work! > > The workshop will happen. There will be a global proposal. You CAN make it fail and you probably will. But in the not-so-long run, that could end up being a major defeat for you, not me and the others you think you are fending off. Can you be more explicit? Who are we mean to fend off? What is the physical mechanism by which a global proposal that failed to gain approval in all regions be implemented on a global scale outside of RIR policy communities? Are you meaning the market will ignore RIR policies? Do you imply that intergovernmental forces will somehow gain control of Internet resource distribution policy making? Pls elaborate. Rgds, McTim A lot of people are starting to watch this. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- >> bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of McTim >> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 10:27 PM >> To: RIPE Address Policy Working Group >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) >> >> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Milton L Mueller >> wrote: >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >> As has been noted, there already is a successfully working process >> >> for submission of global policies in the Internet number registry >> >> system In fact, I pointed that fact out specifically to Milton the >> >> other day - >> >> > >> - >> >> ip-address-blocks/#comment-1031> >> > >> > [Milton L Mueller] >> > >> > Yes, John and I have had many conversations about this. >> > >> > I will be putting together a workshop at the Baku IGF on precisely >> > this topic. Why don't we use that opportunity to make it a real >> > WORKshop and attempt to develop consensus around a global policy that >> > could be submitted >> >> so you want to develop a policy proposal in Forum A which can only be >> decided upon in Fora B, C, D, E and F?? >> >> As John has indicated, it wouldn't be appropriate for RIR staff to >> represent their respective community's position since in some cases they >> don't know what it would be unless a proposal is put in front of their >> community, and it is not the role of the RIR staff to make global >> policy. >> >> You would have more success (I think) if you used the argument "we >> should all run out at the same time" to push for a global transfer >> policy. ?I don't think an appeal to free market purism will win many >> folk, at least that is my sense from my experience as a co-chair of the >> AfriNIC PDWG. ?We rejected a free market based proposal less than a year >> ago. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." ?Jon Postel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ?following the procedure John has outlined? Are you in John? >> > How about a RIPE-NCC representative? Any takers? >> > >> > >> > > > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel From andrew.dul at quark.net Sun Apr 15 23:10:16 2012 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:10:16 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] global coordination In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212726B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212701E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212726B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4F8B3938.8060000@quark.net> On 4/15/2012 1:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Three in a row: three consecutive, mutually reinforcing indications of bad faith. Milton, what you call bad faith, others might call expressing a different opinion from your own. > > John Curran: "eek! I can't participate in policy development." Well, sure you can at the IGF, and besides it isn't really "policy development" of the sort you are pretending to be afraid of. Everyone knows that IGF is a non-binding discussion forum and its purpose, if it has a purpose at all, is to do precisely the kind of thing I am proposing - namely, bring multiple stakeholders together in a safe, non-negotiating atmosphere to see where cooperation can move forward in other forums. Are you saying that it is ok for NRO people to do this among themselves, but not out in the open in an inclusive way? Please reconsider. Ironically, one of the things that you [Milton] have written about a number of times is that the RIRs are to inwardly focused. That is the RIRs cannot change because they have a self-incentive not to change. Yet, the fact that RIR staff, in general, do not fully participate in the policy development process provides a check and balance against the RIRs themselves influencing the policy development process too much. Is the RIR policy development process perfect, no; is it quirky, yes; has it evolved over time to meet different challenges, yes; will it need to evolve further, yes. > McTim: "so you want to develop a policy proposal in Forum A which can only be decided upon in Fora B, C, D, E and F??". Yes, duh, that's what the IGF is for. What is so odd and difficult about well-intentioned people meeting at the IGF, finding out what kind of a proposal(s) could be on the table, debating their merits and demerits, and agreeing to take what is agreeable into those Fora in a coordinated way?. Can you tell me again why you fear that? I personally have no problem with people discussing policy proposals in other fora. > > > The workshop will happen. There will be a global proposal. Good, I hope that the igf discussions are fruitful and inclusive enough, so that they represent a large majority of the stakeholders. Andrew From davidm at futureinquestion.net Mon Apr 16 00:14:45 2012 From: davidm at futureinquestion.net (David Monosov) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 00:14:45 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers) In-Reply-To: <4f79ad4a.84250e0a.43a2.216eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <4f79ad4a.84250e0a.43a2.216eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4F8B4855.4060307@futureinquestion.net> Dear address-policy-wg, Ms. Brown, At present, RIPE NCC keeps extensive notes of all resources and actors involved in each direct assignment and allocation. This includes, for example, detailed ticket histories and revisions of the WHOIS database. This provides RIPE NCC with visibility into systemic abuse attempts of services it offers and enables it to challenge such attempts. Wouldn't 2012-01 without a uniform framework across all RIRs that includes provisions for extensive information sharing eliminate this already weak checkpoint by essentially making each RIR see half of each story? At the extreme, it might even encourage the flow of resources from "better informed" toward "less informed" RIRs, while potentially opening new loopholes and avenues for abuse and resource hoarding - especially when it may have increasing financial rewards. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov On 04/02/2012 03:39 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 30 April 2012. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > on behalf of the Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > > From chrish at consol.net Mon Apr 16 11:32:48 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (Chris) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:32:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01 In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212726B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212701E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212726B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4F8BE740.7010305@consol.net> On 04/15/2012 10:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > John Curran: "eek! I can't participate in policy development." Well, sure you can at the IGF, don't worry, i think it's obvious that this statement has nothing to do with what he's actually doing. he does, although as he indicated himself, maybe he shouldn't. > Scott Leibrand: "we shouldn't have a global policy because of 'differences in the different regions' situations...'" In other words (to translate from the original American), "my region has a self-interest in creating trade barriers." Yeah, I know that, Scott, that's my point. And your second point seems to boil down to this: those of us currently running RIRs feel more comfortable doing bilateral deals with our buddies in other RIRs. Yeah, I know that, Scott, that's my point. So you don't think there's anything wrong with that? So you don't want to let anyone else in the game? Please reconsider. actually i think every region has an intrinsic self-interest in not allowing pirating of the ip-commons. that's probably because of the definition of the region in this context being the community - as opposed to a small arbitrary group of people who'd like to make money from this commons. your unilateral approach isn't really convincing, btw... > McTim: "so you want to develop a policy proposal in Forum A which can only be decided upon in Fora B, C, D, E and F??". Yes, duh, that's what the IGF is for. What is so odd and difficult about well-intentioned people meeting at the IGF, finding out what kind of a proposal(s) could be on the table, debating their merits and demerits, and agreeing to take what is agreeable into those Fora in a coordinated way?. Can you tell me again why you fear that? you're right. certainly nobody can prohibit you to think about a proposal, in whatever group you chose to. actually i'd be very happy about and would strongly support you to discuss that in some other group - igf, un, itu, why not, who cares... > Any time someone expresses dissatisfaction with current RIR approaches to address policy, out comes the broken record: "make a policy proposal and put it before the RIRs." And as soon as someone starts to do that, and asks you to get serious about cooperating with them, you come up with a dozen lame excuses to tell them, as Randy colorfully put it, to "foad" well, reality check: i don't feel addressed as i didn't tell anybody to foad. not even to pirates trying to f**k up the dispute by bluff attempts of redefinition, or proclaiming war to people who think different. actually from my pov it's what "they" did: i received nice flames in private, telling me to foad (still, my replies just content to point out the flames' missing subject matter, which makes them pointless). > The workshop will happen. There will be a global proposal. You CAN make it fail and you probably will. But in the not-so-long run, that could end up being a major defeat for you, not me and the others you think you are fending off. A lot of people are starting to watch this. well, there already was a proposal to ripe. it just failed. regards, Chris From scottleibrand at gmail.com Mon Apr 16 22:12:01 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:12:01 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212726B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212701E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212726B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Apr 15, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Three in a row: three consecutive, mutually reinforcing indications of bad faith. > > Scott Leibrand: "we shouldn't have a global policy because of 'differences in the different regions' situations...'" In other words (to translate from the original American), "my region has a self-interest in creating trade barriers." I think you're confusing me with someone who opposes liberalizing (inter-regional) transfer policy. My main accomplishments in the realm of ARIN policy have actually been to help get transfer policies adopted: first a local one, and more recently an inter-regional transfer policy that reduces "trade barriers" between ARIN/APNIC and any other regions that choose to participate. To use an economic analogy, we first created regional trade areas (with needs based "licensing" requirements in some regions, which we've liberalized to a 24 month supply in North America). We then expanded that to a multilateral "trade agreement" between North America and the Asia Pacific region, and also offered the same terms to the rest of the world. (Of course, none of what we're going is actually trade negotiation in the traditional sense, as there are no governmental trade barriers to be removed, so that is only an analogy.) > Yeah, I know that, Scott, that's my point. And your second point seems to boil down to this: those of us currently running RIRs feel more comfortable doing bilateral deals with our buddies in other RIRs. Yeah, I know that, Scott, that's my point. So you don't think there's anything wrong with that? So you don't want to let anyone else in the game? Please reconsider. The regional registries register the addresses, so they have to be involved if you want transfers recorded. If you want to involve other multilateral organizations as well in coming up with a proposed global policy, I have no problem with it. It might in fact allow you to come up with language for a global policy that has a better chance of getting consensus. But I still think there are enough regions that don't want to participate in inter-regional IPv4 address transfers (yet) that the chances of getting such a global policy adopted in all regions is low, so I'm focusing my efforts on allowing inter-regional transfers between regions with an interest in doing so. But if you'd like input on crafting a global policy, I'd be happy to participate electronically, or in person at an upcoming ARIN or LACNIC meeting. I probably won't make it to any other upcoming fora in person, though. And, as always, everyone is welcome to participate in the RIRs' policy processes, either by subscribing to mailing lists like this one, or showing up at public policy meetings. I for one believe we need more input from a broader array of participants. (It was good to meet you at a recent ARIN meeting, and I hope you'll come to future meetings as well.) > Let's lay this out even clearer for all to see: > > Any time someone expresses dissatisfaction with current RIR approaches to address policy, out comes the broken record: "make a policy proposal and put it before the RIRs." And as soon as someone starts to do that, and asks you to get serious about cooperating with them, you come up with a dozen lame excuses to tell them, as Randy colorfully put it, to "foad" You are correct that new policy proposals tend to be opposed by some segment of the community. I've attempted to counter that by working with proposal authors to take the community's feedback and use it to make revisions or craft a new proposal that will engender less opposition and more support from the community. I don't think the opposition is a symptom of an insular policy process, so much as a manifestation of the conservative approach many network operators and other interested members of the IP addressing community take to proposed changes to rules/policies. I usually involve myself mostly in my home region (ARIN), but if anyone in the RIPE region would like to work on proposing an inter-regional transfer policy along the lines of what ARIN and APNIC have adopted, I'd be happy to collaborate. > The workshop will happen. There will be a global proposal. You CAN make it fail and you probably will. But in the not-so-long run, that could end up being a major defeat for you, not me and the others you think you are fending off. A lot of people are starting to watch this. If a global policy fails, it is because the interested parties who choose to participate in the RIR policy processes don't all think it's a good idea. In fact, the way the global policy process is constructed, there has to be a consensus in all five regions, so the chances of anything controversial getting adopted that way is fairly low. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing. -Scott >> -----Original Message----- >> From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- >> bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of McTim >> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 10:27 PM >> To: RIPE Address Policy Working Group >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) >> >> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Milton L Mueller >> wrote: >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>> As has been noted, there already is a successfully working process >>>> for submission of global policies in the Internet number registry >>>> system In fact, I pointed that fact out specifically to Milton the >>>> other day - >>>> >>> - >>>> ip-address-blocks/#comment-1031> >>> >>> [Milton L Mueller] >>> >>> Yes, John and I have had many conversations about this. >>> >>> I will be putting together a workshop at the Baku IGF on precisely >>> this topic. Why don't we use that opportunity to make it a real >>> WORKshop and attempt to develop consensus around a global policy that >>> could be submitted >> >> so you want to develop a policy proposal in Forum A which can only be >> decided upon in Fora B, C, D, E and F?? >> >> As John has indicated, it wouldn't be appropriate for RIR staff to >> represent their respective community's position since in some cases they >> don't know what it would be unless a proposal is put in front of their >> community, and it is not the role of the RIR staff to make global >> policy. >> >> You would have more success (I think) if you used the argument "we >> should all run out at the same time" to push for a global transfer >> policy. I don't think an appeal to free market purism will win many >> folk, at least that is my sense from my experience as a co-chair of the >> AfriNIC PDWG. We rejected a free market based proposal less than a year >> ago. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> following the procedure John has outlined? Are you in John? >>> How about a RIPE-NCC representative? Any takers? >>> >>> >>> > > From mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 16 22:49:56 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 20:49:56 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) In-Reply-To: References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212701E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212726B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2128FFF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> OK, apologies, Scott, for misreading the thrust of your message. You are indeed welcome to participate in a IGF dialogue focused on globalizing transfer policy, remotely I would guess, time zones permitting. I will keep you informed. > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 4:12 PM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) > > On Apr 15, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Three in a row: three consecutive, mutually reinforcing indications of bad > faith. > > > > Scott Leibrand: "we shouldn't have a global policy because of 'differences in > the different regions' situations...'" In other words (to translate from the > original American), "my region has a self-interest in creating trade barriers." > > I think you're confusing me with someone who opposes liberalizing > (inter-regional) transfer policy. My main accomplishments in the realm > of ARIN policy have actually been to help get transfer policies > adopted: first a local one, and more recently an inter-regional > transfer policy that reduces "trade barriers" between ARIN/APNIC and > any other regions that choose to participate. To use an economic > analogy, we first created regional trade areas (with needs based > "licensing" requirements in some regions, which we've liberalized to a > 24 month supply in North America). We then expanded that to a > multilateral "trade agreement" between North America and the Asia > Pacific region, and also offered the same terms to the rest of the > world. (Of course, none of what we're going is actually trade > negotiation in the traditional sense, as there are no governmental > trade barriers to be removed, so that is only an analogy.) > > > Yeah, I know that, Scott, that's my point. And your second point seems to > boil down to this: those of us currently running RIRs feel more comfortable > doing bilateral deals with our buddies in other RIRs. Yeah, I know that, Scott, > that's my point. So you don't think there's anything wrong with that? So you > don't want to let anyone else in the game? Please reconsider. > > The regional registries register the addresses, so they have to be > involved if you want transfers recorded. If you want to involve other > multilateral organizations as well in coming up with a proposed global > policy, I have no problem with it. It might in fact allow you to come > up with language for a global policy that has a better chance of > getting consensus. But I still think there are enough regions that > don't want to participate in inter-regional IPv4 address transfers > (yet) that the chances of getting such a global policy adopted in all > regions is low, so I'm focusing my efforts on allowing inter-regional > transfers between regions with an interest in doing so. But if you'd > like input on crafting a global policy, I'd be happy to participate > electronically, or in person at an upcoming ARIN or LACNIC meeting. I > probably won't make it to any other upcoming fora in person, though. > > And, as always, everyone is welcome to participate in the RIRs' policy > processes, either by subscribing to mailing lists like this one, or > showing up at public policy meetings. I for one believe we need more > input from a broader array of participants. (It was good to meet you > at a recent ARIN meeting, and I hope you'll come to future meetings as > well.) > > > Let's lay this out even clearer for all to see: > > > > Any time someone expresses dissatisfaction with current RIR approaches > to address policy, out comes the broken record: "make a policy proposal and > put it before the RIRs." And as soon as someone starts to do that, and asks > you to get serious about cooperating with them, you come up with a dozen > lame excuses to tell them, as Randy colorfully put it, to "foad" > > You are correct that new policy proposals tend to be opposed by some > segment of the community. I've attempted to counter that by working > with proposal authors to take the community's feedback and use it to > make revisions or craft a new proposal that will engender less > opposition and more support from the community. I don't think the > opposition is a symptom of an insular policy process, so much as a > manifestation of the conservative approach many network operators and > other interested members of the IP addressing community take to > proposed changes to rules/policies. > > I usually involve myself mostly in my home region (ARIN), but if > anyone in the RIPE region would like to work on proposing an > inter-regional transfer policy along the lines of what ARIN and APNIC > have adopted, I'd be happy to collaborate. > > > The workshop will happen. There will be a global proposal. You CAN make it > fail and you probably will. But in the not-so-long run, that could end up being > a major defeat for you, not me and the others you think you are fending off. > A lot of people are starting to watch this. > > If a global policy fails, it is because the interested parties who > choose to participate in the RIR policy processes don't all think it's > a good idea. In fact, the way the global policy process is > constructed, there has to be a consensus in all five regions, so the > chances of anything controversial getting adopted that way is fairly > low. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing. > > -Scott > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > >> bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of McTim > >> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 10:27 PM > >> To: RIPE Address Policy Working Group > >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) > >> > >> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Milton L Mueller > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> > >>>> As has been noted, there already is a successfully working process > >>>> for submission of global policies in the Internet number registry > >>>> system In fact, I pointed that fact out specifically to Milton the > >>>> other day - > >>>> war-in > >>>> - > >>>> ip-address-blocks/#comment-1031> > >>> > >>> [Milton L Mueller] > >>> > >>> Yes, John and I have had many conversations about this. > >>> > >>> I will be putting together a workshop at the Baku IGF on precisely > >>> this topic. Why don't we use that opportunity to make it a real > >>> WORKshop and attempt to develop consensus around a global policy > that > >>> could be submitted > >> > >> so you want to develop a policy proposal in Forum A which can only be > >> decided upon in Fora B, C, D, E and F?? > >> > >> As John has indicated, it wouldn't be appropriate for RIR staff to > >> represent their respective community's position since in some cases they > >> don't know what it would be unless a proposal is put in front of their > >> community, and it is not the role of the RIR staff to make global > >> policy. > >> > >> You would have more success (I think) if you used the argument "we > >> should all run out at the same time" to push for a global transfer > >> policy. I don't think an appeal to free market purism will win many > >> folk, at least that is my sense from my experience as a co-chair of the > >> AfriNIC PDWG. We rejected a free market based proposal less than a > year > >> ago. > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> > >> McTim > >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> following the procedure John has outlined? Are you in John? > >>> How about a RIPE-NCC representative? Any takers? > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > From tvest at eyeconomics.com Tue Apr 17 07:24:42 2012 From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (Tom Vest) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:24:42 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) In-Reply-To: References: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D55B6@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <20120413082713.GM84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2126D7D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120414111014.GA3357@vacation.karoshi.com> <20120414123826.GA37149@Space.Net> <20120414143927.GC3671@vacation.karoshi.com> <82893745-049B-411E-8953-1CBF1C67BBCF@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212701E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212726B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Apr 16, 2012, at 4:12 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > On Apr 15, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Three in a row: three consecutive, mutually reinforcing indications of bad faith. >> >> Scott Leibrand: "we shouldn't have a global policy because of 'differences in the different regions' situations...'" In other words (to translate from the original American), "my region has a self-interest in creating trade barriers." > > I think you're confusing me with someone who opposes liberalizing > (inter-regional) transfer policy. My main accomplishments in the realm > of ARIN policy have actually been to help get transfer policies > adopted: first a local one, and more recently an inter-regional > transfer policy that reduces "trade barriers" between ARIN/APNIC and > any other regions that choose to participate. To use an economic > analogy, we first created regional trade areas (with needs based > "licensing" requirements in some regions, which we've liberalized to a > 24 month supply in North America). We then expanded that to a > multilateral "trade agreement" between North America and the Asia > Pacific region, and also offered the same terms to the rest of the > world. (Of course, none of what we're going is actually trade > negotiation in the traditional sense, as there are no governmental > trade barriers to be removed, so that is only an analogy.) > >> Yeah, I know that, Scott, that's my point. And your second point seems to boil down to this: those of us currently running RIRs feel more comfortable doing bilateral deals with our buddies in other RIRs. Yeah, I know that, Scott, that's my point. So you don't think there's anything wrong with that? So you don't want to let anyone else in the game? Please reconsider. > > The regional registries register the addresses, so they have to be > involved if you want transfers recorded. If you want to involve other > multilateral organizations as well in coming up with a proposed global > policy, I have no problem with it. It might in fact allow you to come > up with language for a global policy that has a better chance of > getting consensus. But I still think there are enough regions that > don't want to participate in inter-regional IPv4 address transfers > (yet) that the chances of getting such a global policy adopted in all > regions is low, so I'm focusing my efforts on allowing inter-regional > transfers between regions with an interest in doing so. But if you'd > like input on crafting a global policy, I'd be happy to participate > electronically, or in person at an upcoming ARIN or LACNIC meeting. I > probably won't make it to any other upcoming fora in person, though. > > And, as always, everyone is welcome to participate in the RIRs' policy > processes, either by subscribing to mailing lists like this one, or > showing up at public policy meetings. I for one believe we need more > input from a broader array of participants. (It was good to meet you > at a recent ARIN meeting, and I hope you'll come to future meetings as > well.) > >> Let's lay this out even clearer for all to see: >> >> Any time someone expresses dissatisfaction with current RIR approaches to address policy, out comes the broken record: "make a policy proposal and put it before the RIRs." And as soon as someone starts to do that, and asks you to get serious about cooperating with them, you come up with a dozen lame excuses to tell them, as Randy colorfully put it, to "foad" > > You are correct that new policy proposals tend to be opposed by some > segment of the community. I've attempted to counter that by working > with proposal authors to take the community's feedback and use it to > make revisions or craft a new proposal that will engender less > opposition and more support from the community. I don't think the > opposition is a symptom of an insular policy process, so much as a > manifestation of the conservative approach many network operators and > other interested members of the IP addressing community take to > proposed changes to rules/policies. Hi Scott, As someone who has frequently spoken in opposition to the market liberalization initiatives of the last few years, I cannot say whether your assumptions about a widespread "conservative predisposition" toward policy making is right or wrong. I can only speak to my own perspective, which I would describe not as "conservative," but rather as "mindful" (as in the opposite of "forgetful") of two major lessons drawn from operational experience during the 1990s - 2000s: 1. The last major/industry-wide disruption in network input prices was one of the factors that contributed to the first Internet bust. Subsequently, that cost/price shock also contributed to the creeping "financialization" of some kinds of protocol number resources (e.g., ASNs), which in turn have created new cumulating challenges to Internet scalability and security of a kind that may ultimately turn out to be quite resistant to private, industry-based coordination. 2. Thanks to the ever-falling cost of other core material inputs (i.e., everything but power and "turf") and the relatively low barriers to entering most Internet content and services markets, the worldwide geographic pattern of Internet infrastructure deployment and competition has been strongly shaped by the opposing commercial strategies of "bottleneck" (i.e., retain customers, deter competitive entry) and "bypass" (i.e., shop around, find an alternate deployment/delivery path). To date, the rapid pace of Internet deployment/adoption and Internet content and services innovation/diversification is a testament to the overwhelming dominance of the "bypass" strategy over the "bottleneck" strategy -- at least in many/most though not all places. One of the main reasons for that dominance is the fact that aspiring service providers have always been able to leverage different levels of the TCP/IP "stack" to surmount different/shifting problems encountered along the service delivery path and over time, e.g., as they expand out and scale up. In a future of asymmetrical access to globally interoperable IP addresses, however, that flexibility could cease to exist, or more likely become the exclusive purview of the inheritors of RIR-era IPv4, who simply by virtue of that inheritance will be able to "bottleneck" and/or "bypass" any future aspiring post-RIR era new entrant with relative ease. Either way, "bottleneck" strategies are likely to become easier for future incumbents, while "bypass" options for future new entrants will either dwindle or disappear. As time passes, commercial incentives to exploit that strategic advantage for as long as possible (e.g., by implementing IPv6 in ways that, at best, indefinitely perpetuate the advantages of IPv4 possession) are likely to become quite tempting for some commercial operators, just as incentives to commercially exploit various inherited territorial privileges and/or legacy physical assets have been a perpetual feature of the fixed telecoms sector. In short, I have a keen appreciation of how incentives matter, and a fair bit of experience observing how similar changes to incentive structures have played out in the not-so-distant past. My own reluctance to see the community race down this path is thus not based on some vague attachment to the status quo for its own sake (ala "conservatism"), but rather on what seems to me to be a fairly concrete and grounded understanding of several potentially serious risks that this path will impose on us all -- current and future direct stakeholders, number resource registry and industry self-governance institutions, and the Internet more generally. If the consensus of the community continues to discount these and all other/similar risks, I can live with that; that's how the current, consensus-based system works. But I would like to make sure that folks are actually clear about what it is that they're discounting. Regards, TV > I usually involve myself mostly in my home region (ARIN), but if > anyone in the RIPE region would like to work on proposing an > inter-regional transfer policy along the lines of what ARIN and APNIC > have adopted, I'd be happy to collaborate. > >> The workshop will happen. There will be a global proposal. You CAN make it fail and you probably will. But in the not-so-long run, that could end up being a major defeat for you, not me and the others you think you are fending off. A lot of people are starting to watch this. > > If a global policy fails, it is because the interested parties who > choose to participate in the RIR policy processes don't all think it's > a good idea. In fact, the way the global policy process is > constructed, there has to be a consensus in all five regions, so the > chances of anything controversial getting adopted that way is fairly > low. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing. > > -Scott > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- >>> bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of McTim >>> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 10:27 PM >>> To: RIPE Address Policy Working Group >>> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01) >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Milton L Mueller >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >>>>> As has been noted, there already is a successfully working process >>>>> for submission of global policies in the Internet number registry >>>>> system In fact, I pointed that fact out specifically to Milton the >>>>> other day - >>>>> >>>> - >>>>> ip-address-blocks/#comment-1031> >>>> >>>> [Milton L Mueller] >>>> >>>> Yes, John and I have had many conversations about this. >>>> >>>> I will be putting together a workshop at the Baku IGF on precisely >>>> this topic. Why don't we use that opportunity to make it a real >>>> WORKshop and attempt to develop consensus around a global policy that >>>> could be submitted >>> >>> so you want to develop a policy proposal in Forum A which can only be >>> decided upon in Fora B, C, D, E and F?? >>> >>> As John has indicated, it wouldn't be appropriate for RIR staff to >>> represent their respective community's position since in some cases they >>> don't know what it would be unless a proposal is put in front of their >>> community, and it is not the role of the RIR staff to make global >>> policy. >>> >>> You would have more success (I think) if you used the argument "we >>> should all run out at the same time" to push for a global transfer >>> policy. I don't think an appeal to free market purism will win many >>> folk, at least that is my sense from my experience as a co-chair of the >>> AfriNIC PDWG. We rejected a free market based proposal less than a year >>> ago. >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> following the procedure John has outlined? Are you in John? >>>> How about a RIPE-NCC representative? Any takers? >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > From nigel at titley.com Thu Apr 19 10:06:24 2012 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:06:24 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F8FC780.9090407@titley.com> On 13/04/12 12:33, Rob Blokzijl wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > on the agenda for the Adress Policy WG next week is a presentation of > a document titled "IPv4 Maintenance Policy", attached to this mail. > > This is a document that is slightly different from or usual type of > policy documents: it is an attempt to consolidate those policies and > practices that will still be relevant after the depletion of the IPv4 > free pool. > > The aim is to have a consistent and complete collection of all things > relevant to IPv4 for the years to come. I have no comment one way or the other on such a document, however I do strongly feel that iff this becomes a formal policy proposal then Rob, as the final PDP appeal arbiter, should distance himself from it. Could I suggest a task force? Nigel From chrish at consol.net Thu Apr 19 15:24:52 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (Chris) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:24:52 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F901224.70501@consol.net> hi! On 04/13/2012 01:33 PM, Rob Blokzijl wrote: > This is a document that is slightly different from or usual type of > policy documents: it is an attempt to consolidate those policies and > practices that will still be relevant after the depletion of the IPv4 > free pool. > > The aim is to have a consistent and complete collection of all things > relevant to IPv4 for the years to come. > > Read, digest, enjoy - and discuss :-) ok, some thoughts: - formal: actually not tied to 'after the depletion of the v4 free pool' at all. - the way it's currently worded, it reads like this aims at ultimately disposing ripe. can be done, ofc, but imho that's not really desirable... - no specific 'more equal than others' cases - that's fine. - whois db as lir db - that's fine. this again calls for a refer attribute for inet*num. from the discussions going on lately, it seems there's a strong need to define the nature of ip space, i'd suggest something like this: 2? Number Resources The number resources subject to the coordination task by RIPE, namely IP-Address-Space and AS-Number-Space, are considered a commons: they cannot be owned, everybody has equal rights to them, their distribution has to be done fair and equally according to need. furthermore, i'd suggest to also handle IPv6 in the same single document (like, simply remove the "v4" part from every occurrence of "IPv4", except where really v4 specific). point 5 actually introduces a subtle change creating a special case, so i'd suggest to change the last sentence simply into something like: "Allocations are treated identically whether they are transferred or directly allocated." regarding point 8, i don't see any justification for bullet point 4 anymore. actually i think dropping point 8 completely would do, too - ymmv. there also seems to be an interest in formalizing rir ip allocation in the face of depletion. so i guess this should be dealt with in such a single policy document, too (see my recent mail regarding this subject on this list for details). regards, Chris From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 19 16:42:07 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:42:07 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212A869@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> This aspect of the policy regarding legacy holders needs clarification: "Leave data as it is in the RIPE Registry. The Legacy Resource Holder will not be able to add to or alter their data and will not have access to any RIPE NCC services such as reverse delegation and certification." It is likely that in response to this policy legacy holders will choose to use an alternate registrar for the services you are precluding them from using (e.g., reverse delegation and certification). In that case RIPE NCC will need to negotiate an interoperability or interconnection agreement with these service alternate providers to ensure that a globally applicable unique registration occurs. If RIPE NCC is not willing to do that, it appears to be attempting to leverage its monopoly to force legacy holders into purchase and use of their services, something that raises obvious competition policy issues. I wouldn't advise you to do down that path. > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Rob Blokzijl > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 7:34 AM > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy > > Dear Colleagues, > > on the agenda for the Adress Policy WG next week is a presentation > of > a document titled "IPv4 Maintenance Policy", attached to this mail. > > This is a document that is slightly different from or usual type of > policy documents: it is an attempt to consolidate those policies and > practices that will still be relevant after the depletion of the > IPv4 > free pool. > > The aim is to have a consistent and complete collection of all > things > relevant to IPv4 for the years to come. > > Read, digest, enjoy - and discuss :-) > > Best regards, > > Rob Blokzijl From chrish at consol.net Thu Apr 19 17:38:45 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (Chris) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:38:45 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212A869@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212A869@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4F903185.20001@consol.net> On 04/19/2012 04:42 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > "Leave data as it is in the RIPE Registry. The Legacy Resource Holder will not be able to add to or alter their data and will not have access to any RIPE NCC services such as reverse delegation and certification." > > It is likely that in response to this policy legacy holders will choose to use an alternate registrar for the services you are precluding them from using (e.g., reverse delegation and certification). In that case RIPE NCC will need to negotiate an interoperability or interconnection agreement with these service alternate providers to ensure that a globally applicable unique registration occurs. the space referred to is allocated to (or administered by if you prefer) ripe. reverses for this space are delegated to ripe (one single exception with no relevance to this subject). alternate service providers can't delegate from this space. to choose an alternate provider for reverse delegation, the ip space in question will have to be returned, and a new allocation (from the alternate reverse delegation provider) will have to be done. would work nicely: the 'legacy' is removed, the user will get a normal new allocation. everyone should be happy with such a case. all this aside: you seem to try to express the 'threat of competition'. ripe isn't a business. there is no competition. ncc coordinates for the community, that's all. in case of users where it's actually an option to choose between some rirs, it's not important to ripe whether he chooses ripe or some other rir. actually, if this user chooses a different rir, the result is less work for ncc, and more free space for ripe. on the other hand, dropping the paragraph or the whole legacy paragraph is probably best anyway. > If RIPE NCC is not willing to do that, it appears to be attempting to leverage its monopoly to force legacy holders into purchase and use of their services, something that raises obvious competition policy issues. I wouldn't advise you to do down that path. community ip coordination isn't a business. regards, Chris From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 19 20:54:44 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:54:44 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: <4F903185.20001@consol.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212A869@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4F903185.20001@consol.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212A9B8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > the space referred to is allocated to (or administered by if you prefer) > ripe. reverses for this space are delegated to ripe (one single [Milton L Mueller] It wasn't allocated by RIPE. Read the definition of "legacy." >alternate service providers can't delegate from this space. [Milton L Mueller] They don't have to delegate, the space has already been delegated to a legacy holder. > to choose an alternate provider for reverse delegation, the ip space in > question will have to be returned, and a new allocation (from the > alternate reverse delegation provider) will have to be done. > would work nicely: the 'legacy' is removed, the user will get a normal > new allocation. everyone should be happy with such a case. [Milton L Mueller] thanks for demonstrating the distance between your worldview and reality in concrete terms. > all this aside: you seem to try to express the 'threat of competition'. > ripe isn't a business. there is no competition. ncc coordinates for the > community, that's all. in case of users where it's actually an option to [Milton L Mueller] DNS wasn't a business in 1995. Then it was. > on the other hand, dropping the paragraph or the whole legacy paragraph > is probably best anyway. [Milton L Mueller] Here we may agree. Let's focus on that. From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Apr 20 01:47:08 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:47:08 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212A9B8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212A869@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4F903185.20001@consol.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212A9B8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> the space referred to is allocated to (or administered by if you prefer) >> ripe. reverses for this space are delegated to ripe (one single > > [Milton L Mueller] It wasn't allocated by RIPE. Read the definition of "legacy." > >>alternate service providers can't delegate from this space. > > [Milton L Mueller] They don't have to delegate, the space has already been delegated to a legacy holder. Chris is talking about the reverse delegation in the DNS. He is correct that RIPE NCC administers reverse delegation for some legacy blocks. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Fri Apr 20 12:42:17 2012 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:42:17 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212A869@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.sy r.edu> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 02:42 PM 4/19/2012 +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote: >This aspect of the policy regarding legacy holders needs clarification: > >"Leave data as it is in the RIPE Registry. The Legacy Resource Holder will >not be able to add to or alter their data and will not have access to any >RIPE NCC services such as reverse delegation and certification." > >It is likely that in response to this policy legacy holders will choose to >use an alternate registrar for the services you are precluding them from >using (e.g., reverse delegation and certification). In that case RIPE NCC >will need to negotiate an interoperability or interconnection agreement >with these service alternate providers to ensure that a globally >applicable unique registration occurs. > >If RIPE NCC is not willing to do that, it appears to be attempting to >leverage its monopoly to force legacy holders into purchase and use of >their services, something that raises obvious competition policy issues. I >wouldn't advise you to do down that path. The problem is not so much the whois database but rather the delegated file which is the more "official" data for all RIRs: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest When ARIN and RIPE did their ERX thing in 2003, ARIN mistakenly transferred 4600+ IP blocks to RIPE with country=EU rather than country=xx. There are numerous software packages that use the delegated data to do geolocation. Examples: http://code.google.com/p/ci-geoip/ http://16bytes.com/geo_locating-html/ https://metacpan.org/module/IP::Country::DB_File::Builder http://www.codecodex.com/wiki/IP_Address_to_Country So your IP block would not say your country code but rather EU. There is one commercial firewall that uses the delegated data incorrectly as well and hides the details behind something more powerful than a firewall - a lawyerwall. RIPE NCC is unwilling to fix this, unless one submits the legacy IP space to be listed under a LIR. -Hank From randy at psg.com Fri Apr 20 14:41:29 2012 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:41:29 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: Message-ID: > So your IP block would not say your country code but rather EU. There is > one commercial firewall that uses the delegated data incorrectly as well > and hides the details behind something more powerful than a firewall - a > lawyerwall. > > RIPE NCC is unwilling to fix this, unless one submits the legacy IP space > to be listed under a LIR. we're strongly committed to registry accuracy, but shipping will cost you extra. randy From mueller at syr.edu Fri Apr 20 22:25:04 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:25:04 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212B679@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > RIPE NCC is unwilling to fix this, unless one submits the legacy IP space > to be listed under a LIR. > And I wonder how those who suggest there are no competition issues here, would explain that refusal? From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Apr 20 23:28:26 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:28:26 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212B679@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212B679@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi again Milton, On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> RIPE NCC is unwilling to fix this, unless one submits the legacy IP space >> to be listed under a LIR. >> > > And I wonder how those who suggest there are no competition issues here, would explain that refusal? > I would say that the RIPE NCC does what its members tell it to do. If the Db serves up the same data to all, there in no competitive advantage or disadvantage to any geo-location provider is there? If geo-location providers want NCC members to foot the bill for finer grained accuracy, I would say that is a bit cheeky. I'm not sure that I want much finer grained geo-location (from a privacy perspective at least). -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel From fw at deneb.enyo.de Sat Apr 21 11:32:50 2012 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 11:32:50 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Assign before use? Message-ID: <87vcktjupp.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> The IPv4 policy doesn't seem to say this explicitly, but my impression is that address space has to be assigned before it can be used. Is this correct? From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Sat Apr 21 20:03:40 2012 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 21:03:40 +0300 (IDT) Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212B679@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 20 Apr 2012, McTim wrote: > Hi again Milton, > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> RIPE NCC is unwilling to fix this, unless one submits the legacy IP space >>> to be listed under a LIR. >>> >> >> And I wonder how those who suggest there are no competition issues here, would explain that refusal? >> > > I would say that the RIPE NCC does what its members tell it to do. Mctim, Can you point me at the membership request or the WG request to register all legacy IP blocks under a LIR? -Hank > > If the Db serves up the same data to all, there in no competitive > advantage or disadvantage to any geo-location provider is there? > > If geo-location providers want NCC members to foot the bill for finer > grained accuracy, I would say that is a bit cheeky. I'm not sure that > I want much finer grained geo-location (from a privacy perspective at > least). > > From nick at inex.ie Sat Apr 21 20:29:10 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:29:10 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212B679@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4F92FC76.7010704@inex.ie> On 21/04/2012 19:03, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > Can you point me at the membership request or the WG request to register > all legacy IP blocks under a LIR? The RIPE NCC is constituted to do what the RIPE community requests. The RIPE NCC members are a small subset of that community. It's clear that there is a problem here which needs to be fixed, and which balances both the concerns of the ERX holders and the RIPE community (+ by extension, the RIPE NCC). Nick From mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 23 02:44:23 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:44:23 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212B679@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212C066@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > I would say that the RIPE NCC does what [the voices] tell it to do. > From gert at space.net Mon Apr 23 13:07:38 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:07:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212C066@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212B679@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212C066@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20120423110738.GI84425@Space.Net> Hi, call to order, please. Please debate the merits and shortcomings of the proposal at hand, instead of trying to voice some sort of carefully-tendered grudge against the RIR system. Gert Doering -- APWG chair On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:44:23AM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > I would say that the RIPE NCC does what [the voices] tell it to do. > > > -- have you enabled 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 gert at space.net Tue Apr 24 09:46:03 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:46:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Minutes from RIPE 63: final Message-ID: <20120424074603.GV84425@Space.Net> Dear AP WG, the minutes from RIPE 63 have been declared "final" and can be found online at https://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ap/minutes/minutes-from-ripe-63 thanks again to the scribes for a huge piece of work well done. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled 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 andrea at ripe.net Mon Apr 23 21:24:53 2012 From: andrea at ripe.net (Andrea Cima) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:24:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <4F95AC85.7070301@ripe.net> Dear Hank, On 4/20/12 12:42 PM, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > At 02:42 PM 4/19/2012 +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> This aspect of the policy regarding legacy holders needs clarification: >> >> "Leave data as it is in the RIPE Registry. The Legacy Resource Holder >> will not be able to add to or alter their data and will not have >> access to any RIPE NCC services such as reverse delegation and >> certification." >> >> It is likely that in response to this policy legacy holders will >> choose to use an alternate registrar for the services you are >> precluding them from using (e.g., reverse delegation and >> certification). In that case RIPE NCC will need to negotiate an >> interoperability or interconnection agreement with these service >> alternate providers to ensure that a globally applicable unique >> registration occurs. >> >> If RIPE NCC is not willing to do that, it appears to be attempting to >> leverage its monopoly to force legacy holders into purchase and use >> of their services, something that raises obvious competition policy >> issues. I wouldn't advise you to do down that path. > > The problem is not so much the whois database but rather the delegated > file which is the more "official" data for all RIRs: > ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest > > When ARIN and RIPE did their ERX thing in 2003, ARIN mistakenly > transferred 4600+ IP blocks to RIPE with country=EU rather than > country=xx. The ERX project was a database project. Its aim was ensuring that ranges were listed in the correct RIR database. IP blocks were transferred from the ARIN database to the RIPE Database with the country code listed in the inetnum objects at time of the transfer. All legacy resources transferred to the RIPE NCC, that are not associated with any LIR and part of the RIPE Registry, are registered under a placeholder 'eu.zz-transfer'. EU is the country code used when there is no specific country associated with the resources in the RIPE Registry. This results in the EU country code in the delegated stats file (not in the RIPE Database). > There are numerous software packages that use the delegated data to do > geolocation. Examples: > http://code.google.com/p/ci-geoip/ > http://16bytes.com/geo_locating-html/ > https://metacpan.org/module/IP::Country::DB_File::Builder > http://www.codecodex.com/wiki/IP_Address_to_Country > So your IP block would not say your country code but rather EU. > There is one commercial firewall that uses the delegated data > incorrectly as well and hides the details behind something more > powerful than a firewall - a lawyerwall. > The delegated stats file was never intended to be used for geo-location information: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/_README However as you mentioned, different organisations are using it for this purpose. > RIPE NCC is unwilling to fix this, unless one submits the legacy IP > space to be listed under a LIR. > You can register the legacy resources you are the legitimate holder of, to your LIR. These resources would then get the country code of that LIR. This is however by no means enforced... Creating fake LIRs and/or temporarily move resources to an LIR without a contract in place are no options. These are quick "fixes" that will just do harm on the medium term. For this reason we are currently working on improving the delegated and the delegated extended stats files: they will use a different data-set and show the country codes relative to the single resource. The country code will be taken form the RIPE Database. This will be released in the near future. Best regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC > -Hank > > > > From mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 24 15:03:22 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:03:22 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: <20120423110738.GI84425@Space.Net> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212B679@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212C066@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120423110738.GI84425@Space.Net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21417D5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Gert: Learn to take a joke. And try to apply the same standard to RIR supporters as to critics, ok? > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at space.net] > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 7:08 AM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: McTim; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy > > Hi, > > call to order, please. Please debate the merits and shortcomings of the > proposal at hand, instead of trying to voice some sort of carefully- > tendered grudge against the RIR system. > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:44:23AM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > I would say that the RIPE NCC does what [the voices] tell it to do. > > > > > > > > -- > have you enabled 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 gert at space.net Tue Apr 24 15:15:14 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:15:14 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21417D5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212B679@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212C066@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120423110738.GI84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21417D5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20120424131514.GB84425@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 01:03:22PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Gert: > Learn to take a joke. In the context this was posted, it wasn't obvious whether this was a joke or yet another nasty remark. But it was off-topic in any case, so it doesn't particularily matter. > And try to apply the same standard to RIR supporters as to critics, ok? I do. If discussions stray too far from the topic at hand (which is "IPv4 maintenance policy", not "global policy forum" or "the RIRs are good/evil/..." whatever), I'll call to order. Now, if you have something to contribute, I'm all ears... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled 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 mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 24 15:48:58 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:48:58 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: <20120424131514.GB84425@Space.Net> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212B679@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212C066@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120423110738.GI84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21417D5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120424131514.GB84425@Space.Net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214187E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Gert: Let me get you corrected on the facts. You seem to have lost track of them and are confusing your animosity toward certain ideas/people with off-topic discussion. My goal is to encourage a more robust and substantive discussion of the reasons why RIPE (or any other RIR) finds it necessary to sacrifice registry accuracy in order to pressure legacy holders into contracts. The conversation in question began with a discussion of a specific sentence of the proposed IPv4 Maintenance policy, having to do with legacy holders. I expressed concern as to the competition policy implications of that. There was no response to this highly substantive question from you or anyone else associated with the development of that policy. There was also a concern expressed by Nussbacher, which was followed by a sarcastic one liner by Randy Bush which, I note, did not invoke any reprimand from you. In reply to my substantive comment, there was a statement from McTim that RIPE, like all RIRs, always follows the will of the community. This was a rather interesting comment given that the policy in question has not yet passed and thus we do not know whether it reflects anyone's will except that of the people who proposed it. But this statement that "the RIRs are always good" did not lead to any reaction from you. McTim's comment was followed by my humorous substitution of "community" with "the voices." This was followed by a reprimand. I think the pattern is clear. > I do. If discussions stray too far from the topic at hand (which is > "IPv4 maintenance policy", not "global policy forum" or "the RIRs are > good/evil/..." whatever), I'll call to order. Another example of your discriminatory attitude. There is nothing in the messages under this heading about a "global policy forum." Moreover, this is an address policy forum and it is well within its remit to discuss global policy development and a global policy forum, if people here want to do so. The fact that you do not like the idea is not a justification to suppress discussion of it. Now, before you or anyone else accuses me of wasting everyone's time, let me just say that the real cause of the distraction here is your own (Gert's) attempt to arbitrarily single out a particular discussant for one (admittedly) sarcastic remark (although one in a veritable ocean of such remarks involving multiple people), a remark that was no more or less off topic than the comment that preceded it. Attempts to deal with important disagreements via intimidation and silencing won't work with this guy. > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at space.net] > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:15 AM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: Gert Doering; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy > > Hi, > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 01:03:22PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Gert: > > Learn to take a joke. > > In the context this was posted, it wasn't obvious whether this was a > joke or yet another nasty remark. But it was off-topic in any case, so > it doesn't particularily matter. > > > And try to apply the same standard to RIR supporters as to critics, > ok? > > I do. If discussions stray too far from the topic at hand (which is > "IPv4 maintenance policy", not "global policy forum" or "the RIRs are > good/evil/..." whatever), I'll call to order. > > Now, if you have something to contribute, I'm all ears... > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled 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 jim at rfc1035.com Tue Apr 24 18:18:03 2012 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:18:03 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214187E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212B679@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212C066@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120423110738.GI84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21417D5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120424131514.GB84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214187E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 24 Apr 2012, at 14:48, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Gert: > Let me get you corrected on the facts. You seem to have lost track > of them and are confusing your animosity toward certain ideas/people > with off-topic discussion. > > My goal is to encourage a more robust and substantive discussion of > the reasons why RIPE (or any other RIR) finds it necessary to > sacrifice registry accuracy in order to pressure legacy holders into > contracts. Milton, what you've just stated is an opinion, not fact. Andrea has already explained why much of the ERX space that was thrown over the wall to the NCC is tagged as "EU". Perhaps you didn't see this before you sent your email. In any case, a childish game of "oh yes it is, oh no it's not" or an existential debate over whether your opinion (or mine) is fact or not is unhelpful and inappropriate for this list. So if you want to carry on with that futile discussion, please do so somewhere else. Meanwhile, you could also improve the signal to noise ratio by actually discussing address policy or even submitting a proposal to this list. So instead of claiming that the NCC or RIRs in general are behaving in ways that are anti-competitive (in your opinion) please put forward proposals which address these issues or at least clearly identify the perceived problem/issue. Suggest solutions. If you can submit a constructive proposal that's technically sound, it will be warmly welcomed. > There is nothing in the messages under this heading about a "global > policy forum." This is grossly misleading and you know that. You have been posting on this list (admittedly in a different thread) about your IGF workshop and stating there will be a global policy proposal. I presume you mean this IGF workshop will or could turn into that forum. From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 25 15:21:15 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:21:15 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212B679@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212C066@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120423110738.GI84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21417D5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120424131514.GB84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214187E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2145F28@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim at rfc1035.com] > > My goal is to encourage a more robust and substantive discussion of > > the reasons why RIPE (or any other RIR) finds it necessary to > > sacrifice registry accuracy in order to pressure legacy holders into > > contracts. > > Milton, what you've just stated is an opinion, not fact. Andrea has > already explained why much of the ERX space that was thrown over the > wall to the NCC is tagged as "EU". Perhaps you didn't see this before > you sent your email. I did see it. I actually already knew a bit about the ERX, & thought Andrea's explanation was helpful. But it was not germane to the point I was making. My point was about the problems associated with trying to force legacy holders to sign RIR contracts before they can update their records. Perhaps you didn't see my original note. If you think my "opinion" that RIPE is willing to sacrifice registry accuracy in order to pressure legacy holders into contracts is incorrect, please support your counter-opinion with rational discussion and not with expressions of personal hostility. I note that another member of this list stated: "It's clear that there is a problem here which needs to be fixed, and which balances both the concerns of the ERX holders and the RIPE community (+ by extension, the RIPE NCC)." While it would be nice to have a specific proposal on that, until we discuss it and get a better grasp of the pros and cons of different approaches, that is obviously premature. > In any case, a childish game of "oh yes it is, oh no it's not" or an > existential debate over whether your opinion (or mine) is fact or not > is unhelpful and inappropriate for this list. So if you want to carry > on with that futile discussion, please do so somewhere else. Jim, you are in no position to tell me or anyone else on this list what is helpful and appropriate. Please understand: I am not going to be silenced by unfair charges that my points are childish bickering simply because you and Gert have chosen to engage in childish bickering. I know the game you're playing very well, and it won't work. I will remain focused on substantive issues and I will not allow an important discussion to be diverted or suppressed by these kinds of tactics. > Meanwhile, you could also improve the signal to noise ratio by > actually discussing address policy or even submitting a proposal to Again, this is an obviously false charge. I am discussing a specific proposal (see the header) and my comments referenced a specific section of it. Several other members of this list are involved in the discussion. You could improve the signal to noise ratio by actually discussing the policy issue instead of wasting our time on a futile attempt to drive me away with repeated expressions of personal hostility. > > There is nothing in the messages under this heading about a "global > > policy forum." > > This is grossly misleading and you know that. You have been posting on > this list (admittedly in a different thread) about your IGF workshop > and stating there will be a global policy proposal. I presume you mean > this IGF workshop will or could turn into that forum. Yes, I do. That is an entirely appropriate topic for this forum. Indeed, there is a proposal on the table in RIPE for an inter-RIR transfer policy, and in that context an IGF workshop focused on a global transfer policy is a highly relevant topic. It has been greeted with interest by many people, including in ARIN, APNIC and AfriNIC, as well as operators. It is interesting to me that you are oblivious to the contradiction between telling me to develop proposals on the one hand and this attempt to suppress any discussion of an attempt to develop a proposal. --MM From nick at inex.ie Wed Apr 25 15:28:59 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:28:59 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2145F28@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212B679@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212C066@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120423110738.GI84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21417D5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120424131514.GB84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214187E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2145F28@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4F97FC1B.4020004@inex.ie> On 25/04/2012 14:21, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I note that another member of this list stated: "It's clear that there > is a problem here which needs to be fixed, and which balances both the > concerns of the ERX holders and the RIPE community (+ by extension, the > RIPE NCC)." While it would be nice to have a specific proposal on that, > until we discuss it and get a better grasp of the pros and cons of > different approaches, that is obviously premature. It is in progress - some of the ERX holders are discussing this on a mailing list. In the interim, there's not much point in creating proposals until the ERX holders have come up with some concrete ideas about what they're looking for. Nick From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Apr 25 15:41:36 2012 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:41:36 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2145F28@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20120420133256.01f4e5f8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212B679@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD212C066@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120423110738.GI84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21417D5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120424131514.GB84425@Space.Net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD214187E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2145F28@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5C3D5710-DF31-427E-926B-F84B7992D407@rfc1035.com> On 25 Apr 2012, at 14:21, Milton L Mueller wrote: > It is interesting to me that you are oblivious to the contradiction > between telling me to develop proposals on the one hand and this > attempt to suppress any discussion of an attempt to develop a > proposal. Milton, there is clearly no point discussing this further and I deeply resent your repeated efforts to personalise matters and make false allegations. Whatever contradiction you perceive exists in your head. Nobody is suppressing anything here: just asking for the discussion to be relevant and on-topic. Ad-hominen attacks -- you falsely accuse me of being repeatedly personally hostile to you -- are not appropriate for this list, so take them elsewhere. Once again I encourage you to submit a constructive proposal that's technically sound. From emadaio at ripe.net Thu Apr 26 15:10:22 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:10:22 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Cosmetic Surgery Project: Extended Review Period on New Draft, Document for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space Message-ID: <4F99493E.7040602@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC is moving forward with a review of the policy document ripe-302, "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 address space in the RIPE NCC Service Region". A draft of the policy document is online and ready for community review at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-documents The Address Policy Working Group Co-Chairs decided to extend the review period until 24 May 2012 to allow the community more time to give their feedback. Please send your feedback on this draft document to the Address Policy Working Group at . Kind regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From pk at DENIC.DE Thu Apr 26 15:35:56 2012 From: pk at DENIC.DE (Peter Koch) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:35:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Cosmetic Surgery Project: Extended Review Period on New Draft, Document for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space In-Reply-To: <4F99493E.7040602@ripe.net> References: <4F99493E.7040602@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20120426133556.GD441@x27.adm.denic.de> [https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/rad/reverse-address-delegation] I have a few suggestions: > 1.0 Definition > 1.1 Reverse delegation: The process by which the authority for certain reverse DNS zones is assigned to a specific set of DNS servers. > 1.2 Reverse resolution: The process by which a recursive DNS resolver can look up the names of a given IP address by following a chain of referrals from the root zone to either the in-addr.arpa zone or the ip6.arpa zone. > 1.3 Early registration: IPv4 address space assigned or allocated before the establishment of the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). this section is new. It defines "reverse delegation" as a process rather than the result, which is OK, but conflicts with the use in 4.0. > 2.0 Introduction > The RIPE NCC provides the necessary support to enable reverse resolution of IPv4 and IPv6 address space into domain names. This service is implemented under the in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa sub domains described in [1] and [2]. The term 'reverse resolution' is rarely used. The RIPE NCC provides the necessary support to enable DNS reverse mapping for the IPv4 and IPv6 address space. This service is implemented in the in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa domains described in [1] and [2]. > 3.0 Reverse Delegation in the RIPE NCC Service Region > The RIPE NCC provides reverse delegations for IPv4 and IPv6 address space that is registered by the RIPE NCC. The RIPE NCC provides reverse delegation for IPv4 and IPv6 address space that is registered by the RIPE NCC. > > The RIPE NCC also provides systems to control reverse delegation of early registrations that have been transferred to the RIPE Database. > > Address space holders may delegate authority to another party. The original text read "Registrants of address space allocations or assignments may delegate authority for requesting reverse delegation from the RIPE NCC." and I am not sure what either wants to say. Is it about subdelegations? Is it about who is able to ask for the delegation? > 4.0 Procedures > The procedures for requesting and modifying reverse delegation and information about the requirements the RIPE NCC enforces are published at: > http://www.ripe.net/reverse/ > > 5.0 References > [1] "Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain ("arpa")" [RFC 3172] > [2] "DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering" [RFC 2874] RFC 2784 has been declared "historic" and obsoleted by RFC 3596. Changing the reference does not change the policy (in fact, 2874 was all about IP6.INT). -Peter