[address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)

Hi Richard,

On 9/26/13 11:44 PM, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
> I support the general direction of this proposal. If it included v4, I
> would still be in favor.
>

I didn't even dare touching v4 right now even though I agree that this 
policy proposal is a good exercise for what should happen in the near 
future with v4 as well.

>
> That being said, I am not sure about the prefix sizes listed in this
> proposal. According to section 5.1.2 of the new text, everyone will
> receive at least a /32 unless the addresses will be used for a special
> purpose as per section 6. In this case, allocations can be made in
> allocations of /48:
>
> * Operating a TLD: 1-4 * /48
> * Operating an ENUM: 1-4 * /48
> * Operating an IXP: 1 * /48
> * Operating a DNS root server: 1 * /32
>
> There are three concerns with this:
>
> 1) Assuming everyone will get at least a /32, why limit core internet
> infrastructure, i.e. TLDs, ENUMs, and IXPs to a mere /48? The combined
> amount of those allocations will be dwarfed by the combined amount of
> LIRs and End Users.

These were restrictions that existed in the previous version and things 
seemed to work well with these restrictions/sizes. I hear you and if 
others think the same, we could change the limits.

>
> 2) While there are a _lot_ of addresses with IPv6, handing a
> multi-homed End User who will be able to operate on a single /48 for
> the foreseeable future a whole /32 appears to be wasteful. Maybe
> that's v4 speaking through me, but still...

Well, someone that does not plan to make any sub-allocations or anyone 
that still thinks that a /48 will be large enough for the foreseeable 
future can request a /48. A /32 is provided by default though, so I 
would not see many organisations specifically requesting a /48 and not 
the default /32.

see 5.1.2:

"5.1.2 Initial Allocation Size
[...]
/48 allocations can be made by the RIPE NCC to End Users that do not 
expect to ever need more or for special purposes.
Special purposes are covered in section 6 of this policy. When an 
organisation requests a /48 allocation, it must specifically mention in 
its request that it does not plan to use anything larger in the 
foreseeable future."

>
> 3) Becoming a LIR costs several thousand Euros up front and then per
> year. Not being a LIR and simply getting the same /32 will, under
> current pricing schemes, cost €50.
> Becoming a LIR would become an extremely stupid business move over
> night. This means the existing LIRs will be stuck with paying whatever
> price increases happen over the years. That, in turn, means LIRs will
> start trying to redistribute the cost. And _that_ will become ugly
> very quickly.

That was our main concern, so.. I already approached a few of the Board 
Members to discuss this policy proposal and at least announce them that 
this is coming.

My idea was that while the AP-WG can not do anything about the fees 
(these are decided by AGM) we (the proposers) can discuss during the AGM 
our following idea:

- if the policy proposal gets good feedback from the community, it would 
be a great exercise to ask the RIPE NCC (Board) to calculate how much 
would a /32 cost if the prices would be leveled..

    - if the price can not be leveled yet, see how much would the 
membership fee decrease if the non-LIRs would pay double the current 
price (100€) or 500% more (250€), or something around that price.

>
>
> I am not saying my suggested answers are perfect, but my gut feeling
> tells me that while the distinction between "this is PA, hand it to
> your customers" and "this is PI, don't you dare using it for anyone
> but yourself" does not make sense, there should still be a distinction
> between "we need a few v6 addresses" and "we need a lot v6 addresses".

I agree, and that is why someone can request a '/48' or a '/32 or larger'

>
> Two possible approaches:
>
> * Non-LIR allocations could be limited to a single aggregated
> equivalent of, e.g. a /40 or /41. If someone needed more, let them
> become a LIR.

I had this idea initially. But, then how do we determine how large 
should this allocation be? By taking an arbitrary number? What if this 
number is not longer the right number in 2 years?

> * Do away with the flat fee of €50 per Independent Number Resource and
> charge based on size. This would also somewhat prevent people from
> grabbing as much IP space as possible.
>

I think this is where we should be looking at. Try to get the 'price per 
/32' to be equal (or almost equal) to both members and non-members. You 
get a block, you pay the same price for it whether you are a member or not.
Maybe not immediately, maybe not in the next 2-3 years.. but this should 
be the goal for the future.

However, I remember that 'charging per prefix size' discussion did 
appear in some of the previous policy proposals and if I remember 
correctly we were told that if the RIPE NCC were to charge based on 
prefix size, it may lose it's not-for-profit status that it has with the 
Dutch authorities. We need to be careful so that we do not affect RIPE 
NCC's status and activity.

>
> As an aside, reading [1] is needlessly hard. There are several
> sections where text on the left-hand side does not appear on the
> right-hand side. New text on the right-hand side is marked in blue;
> disappearing text on the left-hand side is not marked in any way. This
> is yet another reminder of why migrating to plain text with an
> automated storage and diffing back-end ASAP will be a Good Thing.
>

I agree, but let's keep this discussion in the ncc-services-wg, please.

>
> Richard
>
> [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/other-documents/draft-ipv6-address-allocation-and-assignment-policy-current-policy-text
>

cheers,
Elvis